I received a link to this Obama page (http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/aug20web) to RSVP for the health care reform web address on Thursday at 2:30 pm Eastern daylight time. Being a provider and a future recipient/participant in whatever version of health care reform does pass, I of course signed up.

I asked the President these things:
1. Can we not just extend Medicare to every American citizen? It's a system that would work for both providers and participants--provided it's properly funded, of course.
2. Tort reform--we desperately need it. Yes, we need to hold bad doctors accountable, but too often it turns into the 'Million-dollar Medical lottery' that makes a lot of money for the lawyers. It's driving doctors out of some states like IL where liability insurance is just too expensive to afford, and driving some of them out of business.
3. Insurance reform--I want streamlined claim submission, on-time insurance payments. Right now, when we file claims, we have to file a different set of paperwork for every single one of the hundreds of insurance companies we deal with. We need one form that everyone can accept. Also, when claims are rejected, neither my patients nor I want to receive an 'explanation' from the insurance companty that would win the Pulitzer for "Most Creative Obfuscation." We want a clear explanation of why a claim has been rejected and what to do about it.
4. What will be done to ensure that the US remains on the cutting edge of medical research? We have some of the finest researchers and research institutions in the world, and I'd like to continue living in a country that has some of the best medical minds in the world.

I think health care reform is necessary and almost a certainty in this administration. What do you all think should be done to improve health care? What can be done to address the valid concerns of dissenters (note--this does not include the stupid things that loonies on both the left and right are spouting), such as problems with delays in health care in those countries with universal systems?

Totenkopf

08-19-2009, 02:54 AM

I agree that changes are necessary, but would rather not see a "public option" in any form. I'd say that the govt can provide guidelines and enforce regulation, but that healthcare should remain in the private sector. More competition between insurance companies (hell, among cable companies and utilities would be nice too, but I digress), such as allowing them to sell policies across state borders, would help force business to lower costs in order to compete. Frankly, govt ownership would only make the situation worse. We've already seen how responsible the govt is in too many other areas to seriously contemplate handing over 14-16% of the US economy to its "care". I strongly agree that tort reform is an essential part of the mix, and must be part of any bill seeking to "reform" healthcare in the US. Also, remove pre-existing conditions as an automatic means of refusal for coverage and allow greater portability of health-plans so that loss of employment doesn't put you out on your ass while you look for a new job. Greater streamlining of insurance practices would likely lead to better efficiencies due to the lack of an office needing several employees just to process med claims, as well as hopefully less confusion. Also, and this probably spills over into education, but a greater effort should be made to encourage people to lead a fitter lifestyle. You may not be able to help your genetics/unforseen accidents, but healthier people would likely put less strain on the system. just a few ideas...

Bimmerman

08-19-2009, 06:04 AM

I have the rather unique perspective of an American who has used the universal health care system in Germany.

And I don't like it. The doctors here work maybe four hours a day four days a week. There is no such thing as walk ins, and I literally was told I would have to wait three months to get a nasty infection looked at by the dermatologist I was recommended. The long wait times that people throw around to disparage the system are in fact quite real. Whether that's a function of the system or the incredibly lazy doctors, I don't know, but I tried multiple different dermatologists and they all had similar multiple month waits. I was not amused.

Also, the claim that universal health care of the European variety brings costs down....eh not so much. While it's true that it cost me all of 10 euro for a doctor appointment, and 10 euro for surgery, that isn't the whole cost. About 25% of my paycheck goes directly to the insurance company, and I am in the "lowest" bracket for taxes (student intern). The difference is that rather than writing a check yourself, it is simply garnished from your wages so you never see it. It is anything but "free." Medicines are subsidized, yes, but not free.

Where I'm going with this is that I fully agree the US system needs to be overhauled if not started over. I strongly disagree that we should use the European system as a model.

jrrtoken

08-19-2009, 06:38 AM

It's somewhat... funny, to see that every time the public gov't-funded option is brought up, people yell "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SOCIALISM BAAAHHHH!!!", when it only creates a separate healthcare firm like every other insurance company. It's hilarious to see that it's also being touted as some ultra-restrictive bureaucracy. Seriously, my current private health provider tells me which hospitals I can or can't visit, which doctors I can or can't see, and where and how much I can or can't buy my medications from. If the government can attempt try better, then I'd gladly see what they can do over my current health provider.

JediAthos

08-19-2009, 09:15 AM

I definitely agree that changes need to be made, but I think the president needs to slow down a bit. It almost seems like the legislation is being forced and I don't think it's the best way to go about it.

Having been the recipient of a form of government health care(military) I don't know that some form of public option would be horrible. At the same time Jae's suggestion of extending medicare to all could possibly be an option too. I'm not sure how that would work but something definitely needs to be done to help keep the big insurance companies honest with their pricing.

The doctor's liability insurance thing definitely needs to be addressed as well. My wife's uncle was a surgeon until the cost of insurance forced him to stop practicing and settle for an administrative position at his hospital. He was never sued, and had a clean record, but his insurance costs continued to rise. There needs to be some sort of regulation there for sure.

I'd also like to see insurance companies regulated as far as what treatment they will and won't pay for. I read stories all the time about how someone died because insurance refused to pay for an expensive treatment, or an experimental treatment, or a drug that wasn't FDA approved. It all seems very random to me, and I'd like to see something done...granted I don't have a solution, but that's why I do my job, and I'm not in Washington.

ForeverNight

08-19-2009, 11:41 AM

It's somewhat... funny, to see that every time the public gov't-funded option is brought up, people yell "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE SOCIALISM BAAAHHHH!!!", when it only creates a separate healthcare firm like every other insurance company. It's hilarious to see that it's also being touted as some ultra-restrictive bureaucracy. Seriously, my current private health provider tells me which hospitals I can or can't visit, which doctors I can or can't see, and where and how much I can or can't buy my medications from. If the government can attempt try better, then I'd gladly see what they can do over my current health provider.

Private companies can't compete with government. You know why? Because government doesn't have to turn a profit in order to spend money whereas if a private company runs out of money, it has to file for chapter 11 and reorganize within a set period -that the courts decide- or file for chapter 7 and liquidate their assets.

So, the public option will create inexpensive health care that you're going to be paying for already. With Taxes. So, you'll pay for health insurance TWICE if you get it though a private company.

And, government doing better? They couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

JediAthos

08-19-2009, 01:45 PM

well...I'll say this...private insurance companies aren't hurting for money that's for darn sure. If having the government or medicare, or whatever can keep them honest and keep them from robbing the public blind then it might not be a bad idea.

jrrtoken

08-19-2009, 05:32 PM

Private companies can't compete with government. You know why? Because government doesn't have to turn a profit in order to spend money whereas if a private company runs out of money, it has to file for chapter 11 and reorganize within a set period -that the courts decide- or file for chapter 7 and liquidate their assets.I doubt it; they already turn in massive amounts of profit from being the middlemen in a system. People will always be willing to pay for more than the government standard, therefore, people shall always seek out private healthcare firms. It's not much different than deciding to ship a package via FedEx than the USPS.And, government doing better? They couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.Seeing as there's not much regulation when it comes to insurance rates and hospital bills in the private sector, which allows insurance firms to restrict consumers to their own whim, then I can't really see the harm of the government attempting to provide an alternative. :confused:

Mandalore The Shadow

08-19-2009, 06:56 PM

Here's my view: *Insert title of thread here* is a bad idea. i dont agree with ObamaCare and if it ain't broke don't fix it

Det. Bart Lasiter

08-19-2009, 07:05 PM

Here's my view: *Insert title of thread here* is a bad idea. i dont agree with ObamaCare and if it ain't broke don't fix it

i don't think anyone has said the american healthcare system isn't broken, congrats you've outdone even rush limbaugh

Mandalore The Shadow

08-19-2009, 07:08 PM

I dont think that we need a complete overhaul of the healthcare system it isn't that "Damaged"

jrrtoken

08-19-2009, 07:19 PM

I dont think that we need a complete overhaul of the healthcare system it isn't that "Damaged"Considering that America is probably one of the few, if not the only, industrialized nation(s) to not have their entire population on some sort healthcare plan, I believe that's quite shameless, if not entirely inexcusable. Especially when America is the last bastion of Freedom™ and Democracy™. :nvr4get:

Mandalore The Shadow

08-19-2009, 07:36 PM

Well then we should have Freedom from a GOVERMENT RUN health care program

jrrtoken

08-19-2009, 07:48 PM

Well then we should have Freedom from a GOVERMENT RUN health care program...and you would under the current proposal. It would operate and function like any other healthcare firm, and it would be entirely optional for those who wish to pay for private life insurance. So, yes, I can't really see your point of how a government-operated healthcare firm is analogous to a universal healthcare system...

Mandalore The Shadow

08-19-2009, 07:58 PM

I don't feel like explaining my point so I won't it will take too long any you'll just pick it apart anyways

Darth InSidious

08-19-2009, 08:41 PM

I dont think that we need a complete overhaul of the healthcare system it isn't that "Damaged"
You're right - "damaged" doesn't quite do your health system justice. "Barbaric", "insane", "inhumane", "plutocratic" and "corrupt" are all much better words for it. :thmbup1:

Well then we should have Freedom from a GOVERMENT RUN health care program
Why? The practical upshot for the end-user is the same, but with the added advantage that health services are working for your well-being rather than the profit motive.

But please, don't let me interrupt ranting about the red peril.

Q

08-19-2009, 08:47 PM

What the hell are you all complaining about? Here in the US the poor have the best health insurance on Earth. It's called Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Protection.

Hospitals can't legally refuse me care and while they can bill me, that doesn't mean that I can pay. :devsmoke:

Jae Onasi

08-19-2009, 11:47 PM

well...I'll say this...private insurance companies aren't hurting for money that's for darn sure. If having the government or medicare, or whatever can keep them honest and keep them from robbing the public blind then it might not be a bad idea.
I knew someone who was on the state insurance board in another state. He related a story he'd heard from a VP of an insurance company (from a different state, or he would have had to report this company to the Attorney General for fraud). Insurance companies reject all claims with incomplete information, information in the wrong boxes, wrong codes, wrong diagnoses for the treatment codes, etc. Well, this insurance took all the claims that should have been paid ("clean claims") and just randomly didn't pay 50% of them to see how many people would resubmit the claim. Only 20% of people did. The company made a lot of money that day committing fraud. There definitely needs to be more accountability for insurance companies, and streamlined claims filing so that the companies can't abuse it creating so much paperwork it's almost not worth it to file the claim in the first place.

I doubt it; they already turn in massive amounts of profit from being the middlemen in a system. People will always be willing to pay for more than the government standard, therefore, people shall always seek out private healthcare firms. It's not much different than deciding to ship a package via FedEx than the USPS.Seeing as there's not much regulation when it comes to insurance rates and hospital bills in the private sector, which allows insurance firms to restrict consumers to their own whim, then I can't really see the harm of the government attempting to provide an alternative. :confused:The hospital bills are high because they have to charge a high amount for things like simple tylenol to cover the costs of people who will never pay, or late state Medicaid payments by states like IL who are 6 months or more behind. People with insurance or adequate funds pay the high rates to subsidize people who don't or can't pay. Having every person covered would possibly lower costs in that department. Once hospitals and providers were assured that they'd get paid for everyone they see, they'd be able to lower some of the more ridiculous costs.

I agree that insurance companies restrict consumers to their contracted providers/hospitals. My insurance company will only pay for certain medications and I have to go through some hoops to get certain procedures approved. There is far less of that problem with Medicare, though I believe Medicare works of a formulary (specific approved list) of drugs as well now.

Interestingly, the "$4 bucks a month" program that Wal-Mart started, and Walgreen's and other major pharmacies picked up, has made it easier and harder for me as a provider in some ways. It makes it very easy to prescribe something affordable for my patients. It makes it a lot harder for me to prescribe something that's not on the list--I have to explain why I have to prescribe a $80 bottle of an antibiotic drop instead of the $4 one, and that takes time. With my schedule (over)booked, it means I get behind with the next patients in line, which drives me and them crazy.

I dont think that we need a complete overhaul of the healthcare system it isn't that "Damaged"I suspect you don't work in the medical system at all and that your family has adequate medical insurance. This is an opinion based on lack of information about the extreme problems in American health care. May I ask what you think the problems in health care are (or are not), and what criteria you're using to determine that it's 'not that damaged'?

Considering that America is probably one of the few, if not the only, industrialized nation(s) to not have their entire population on some sort healthcare plan, I believe that's quite shameless, if not entirely inexcusable. Especially when America is the last bastion of Freedom™ and Democracy™. :nvr4get:Shameless, inexcusable, barbaric, backwards, selfish, and assorted other negative sentiments, yes.

Well then we should have Freedom from a GOVERMENT RUN health care programShould we get rid of public schooling too, because it's not part of the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'? We have zero constitutional right to public schooling. We have public schooling through 12th grade because society has deemed it to be a direct benefit to have educated adults. We should have universal health care because it's a direct benefit to society to have healthy members. Do you have any idea how much it costs society to care for one person who's gone blind from glaucoma? The monthly disability check could cover a year's worth of medication and optometric/ophthalmologic care alone. It costs society a lot less for eye drops and appropriate medical care required for that person to keep their sight in the first place.

I don't feel like explaining my point so I won't it will take too long any you'll just pick it apart anywaysThe point of discussing controversial or more serious topics is to learn how different people from different backgrounds, countries, cultures, etc. view it, and perhaps learn from that. Yes, sometimes arguments are going to be picked apart. That's because sometimes they really need to be picked apart because they're wrong. Sometimes it's because the other person has a radically different viewpoint and sees the situation entirely differently. Maybe they're wrong, too, but hold strong opinions on something anyway. Your argument may get picked apart, but that doesn't mean you're an awful person--it just means there's perhaps a problem with that particular argument.

Q

08-20-2009, 12:47 AM

I knew someone who was on the state insurance board in another state. He related a story he'd heard from a VP of an insurance company (from a different state, or he would have had to report this company to the Attorney General for fraud). Insurance companies reject all claims with incomplete information, information in the wrong boxes, wrong codes, wrong diagnoses for the treatment codes, etc. Well, this insurance took all the claims that should have been paid ("clean claims") and just randomly didn't pay 50% of them to see how many people would resubmit the claim. Only 20% of people did. The company made a lot of money that day committing fraud. There definitely needs to be more accountability for insurance companies, and streamlined claims filing so that the companies can't abuse it creating so much paperwork it's almost not worth it to file the claim in the first place.
So what happened in The Rainmaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rainmaker_(John_Grisham)) wasn't an exaggeration, huh?

Jae Onasi

08-20-2009, 01:36 AM

So what happened in The Rainmaker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rainmaker_(John_Grisham)) wasn't an exaggeration, huh?

Well, rejecting all the claims 100% of the time would get the attention of the state insurance commission very quickly. More likely they'd randomly reject a small percentage of them so they wouldn't attract so much attention. At least, that's what I'd do if I were a disreputable, greedy insurance company.

From an article on Medscape (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/706774?src=mp&spon=17&uac=13144BX):

From Medscape Family Medicine > Physicians Are Talking About...
Physicians Are Talking About: What to Do to Reform Healthcare

Nancy R. Terry

Authors and Disclosures

Published: 08/07/2009

As the healthcare debate heats up, the only point on which all parties agree is that the present healthcare system does not work.

An estimated 50 million Americans are uninsured, and the number continues to rise as more people lose both their jobs and their health insurance. Americans spend more than $2 trillion a year on healthcare, which is, by some estimates, 40% more per person than the next most costly country. President Barack Obama and Congress are mobilizing to reform healthcare. Yet, change alone does not guarantee improvement.

In a flurry of postings on Medscape's Physician Connect (MPC), a physician-only discussion board, doctors debate what reform measures would salvage US healthcare. Many physicians are as wary of increased government intervention as they are frustrated by the bureaucratic, profit-driven excesses of private insurance companies.

"As someone who has lived with illness (a congenital immune deficiency) for longer than I have been a doctor, I know first hand how broken our system is," says a dermatologist. "I live in fear of losing my health insurance since I know I am uninsurable through any private program. A public option is the only way to go."

"What would a greatly expanded role for the federal government mean for healthcare in this country?" asks an anesthesiologist. "Rationing for patients, with fewer treatment options and increased difficulty visiting a physician." An infectious disease physician agrees, "Obama's thrust to mandate a Medicare-for-all, single-payer [program] will ultimately lead to healthcare rationing of services -- not for the young and healthy but rather for the elderly, who are the sickest and most vulnerable among us."

The rationing of medical services is frequently cited by a number of physicians as an alarming but predictable component of a national healthcare plan. Yet, other physicians contend that rationing of services already exists. "The private, for-profit insurance carriers have contributed to the healthcare crisis by cherry picking the insureds," says an orthopedic surgeon. "To have a different premium price for those with preexisting illness denies insurance to those who need it most," adds an emergency medicine physician. Another MPC contributor comments, "Instead of making people wait, we just deny elective procedures altogether to people who don't have insurance. That's American rationing."

Advocates of free enterprise favor maintaining a system of multiple insurance providers because, they argue, free enterprise ensures maximum efficiency. In contrast, other physicians claim the exorbitant cost of healthcare can be largely attributed to profit-maximizing insurance companies. "Insurance companies are responsible for the high cost of healthcare," says an MPC contributor. "THEY set the premiums, and the reimbursement and the schemes that are squeezing everyone. All in the interest of profit -- not healthcare."

A national healthcare plan, according to other physicians, would afford no greater efficiency than the current system. "Already doctors aren't accepting Medicaid because of dwindling payments, hassling paper work, confounding delays, long waits, impersonal attention -- medicine DMV [department of motor vehicles] style," quips a pediatrician. "So, everyone will have insurance. Just not that many will have doctors."

Still others see little difference between the options of private and public insurance plans. "The schism between private health insurers and government is a ruse," says a general surgeon. "Medicare is already outsourced to private health insurers. Medicare-for-all will be a big boon for health insurers. Their volume will go up as will their profit margins as government-sponsored cost-effectiveness research demonstrates how much of the expensive medical treatments are "ineffective." Another win-win for government and health insurers. It's all a numbers game -- shift to preventative healthcare and the healthy are happy and the sick are shoved under the carpet."

Obviously, there is no easy solution. The best option, according to some MPC physicians, is to keep open as many options as possible. "Most of the primary care societies and academies favor a one-payer system," comments an MPC contributor. "If we are to give at least basic healthcare benefits to our citizens, we need it [a public plan]. It is not the perfect system, but at present it is the best option available. If a person wants concierge care, he should buy it."

"Will someone please explain what is wrong with a 2-tiered system?" asks an MPC contributor. "A basic plan with some basic coverage for those who cannot contribute and the premier plan for those who do contribute. The water analogy...everyone can drink tap water, but if you want bottled water, you gotta pay."

"Sounds OK to me," responds another contributor. "Coverage for treatments for which there is good efficacy data (not just statistical significance but clinical significance) and everything else, well, if you want it, feel free to buy it."

Few physicians are comfortable with a proposal favored by Congress that participation in a public plan be mandatory for all physicians who accept Medicare patients, although a nephrologist is "okay with mandatory participation for 1 to 2 years to support the government effort, but the mandatory participation should expire automatically afterwards."

Healthcare reform, however, is not simply a question of the number of insurance plans available. Recognizing that any insurance option must coexist with a reform agenda, physicians offer a range of proposals how a more equitable, efficient healthcare system might be achieved.

* Hold the insurance companies accountable to insure patients who have a preexisting illness.

* Set one premium level for all insurance participants, with varying deductible and copayment amounts.

* Establish a fund, patterned after Alaska's Permanent Fund, to cover the cost of insurance for those who cannot afford it. The fund could be built up by taxing commodities and activities that increase the risk for illness, such as tobacco and alcohol use.

* Incentivize preventive medicine, especially in the management of lifestyle diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension.

Physicians, according to an MPC contributor, are in the best position to offer practical, constructive solutions for healthcare reform. "We need to stop coming to the table primarily motivated by protecting our incomes," said an emergency medicine physician. "Instead we should come to the table as citizens who have insight into why our healthcare system is so sick."

Totenkopf

08-20-2009, 02:19 AM

Well, at least you can sue the insurance company. Rather difficult to do that to Uncle Sam, especially when you need "his" permission. Frankly, a govt run plan is not even remotely morally superior to a private one. Perhaps a few other ways to help fund things like FICA is to remove the salary cap and then make it illegal for Congress or the President (whoever they happen to be) to touch that money for anything other than its original purpose. I see no reason for the govt to be anything other than a side player, a safety net basically, for the people who may fall through the cracks. While the current system isn't perfect, it's not tragically flawed beyond tweaking either. Another consideration is for people who refuse to buy insurance, but can afford it, to have to get a policy, thus infusing $$ into the system.

As to the competitiveness angle, if the "public option" appears more affordable b/c its financed by tax money, most private firms will not be able to compete and will lose customers. $$ talks and BS walks. If the USPS were completely private, they'd have gone out of business long ago or postage would be much higher than it currently is. If the "public option" is even remotely analagous to the USPS, that is a very poor argument for adopting it.

Tommycat

08-20-2009, 05:25 AM

Some of my biggest concerns are the "public" option. Who pays for it? What I would like to see is something like a tax credit for those that choose to pay for their own health insurance. This would help make private insurance companies less likely to deny claims as if you deny a claim, they drop you and go with the public option.

I'm with Jae on the one standardized form. It's bad enough working through one of those forms(had a friend show me the billing forms she had to work with... the sample was hard enough to work with)... I can only imagine what doctors have to go through... bleah....

Sometimes an insurance company can surprise you. My girlfriend is a cancer survivor. She needed a gene test. She was told that the insurance company would not cover it. She got the test done anyway(as it needed to be done). Insurance covered everything but the deductible.

Not all insurance companies are like that though. I think a public option with a tax credit to those that fund their own insurance would be the best choice.

Jae, I think the Public school analogy is a pretty scary one... Think about teacher pay. Chronically underfunded. Overworked in some areas.

USPS isn't a great example either.

Then we have the VA hospitals... Yeah... they are run just tip top(note: some areas are run quite well... others... not so much "Prescription strength Tylenol for all").

I'm always skeptical of any plan that you don't have to do anything to get. I have a fear that much like when I needed financial assistance the time when I need it, I'll be denied. I'll pay into it and never be able to make use of it.

Also, from what I understand Canada has somewhere near 700,000 waiting for medical treatment. That number doesn't include the number of people who have come to the US for treatment(though in many cases that treatment is also paid by the Canadian government) or those who have just decided to go with separate health insurance. It's still significantly lower than our 15%

jrrtoken

08-20-2009, 06:40 AM

Not all insurance companies are like that though. I think a public option with a tax credit to those that fund their own insurance would be the best choice.Yes.Jae, I think the Public school analogy is a pretty scary one... Think about teacher pay. Chronically underfunded. Overworked in some areas. Public education isn't federally-operated. Funded, yes, but it's the fact that every state can make their own standards with very little oversight and regulation is what has made public education a joke, full of bureaucracy.Then we have the VA hospitals... Yeah... they are run just tip top(note: some areas are run quite well... others... not so much "Prescription strength Tylenol for all").Yes. That's more or less a failing of the staff and the administrative process itself. Which is why I think it needs to be overhauled along with general healthcare.I'm always skeptical of any plan that you don't have to do anything to get. I have a fear that much like when I needed financial assistance the time when I need it, I'll be denied. I'll pay into it and never be able to make use of it.Why? As long as it's crafted to forgo any bureaucratic errors, then what would be the problem with it? You say you don't want to really pay taxes for other citizens' healthcare; well, you probably already pay taxes for thousands of unknown childrens' educations, so I can't see how this would be any different.Also, from what I understand Canada has somewhere near 700,000 waiting for medical treatment. That number doesn't include the number of people who have come to the US for treatment(though in many cases that treatment is also paid by the Canadian government) or those who have just decided to go with separate health insurance. It's still significantly lower than our 15%You're forgetting the key thing: the current proposal is not a universal system. There always still be private insurance firms. You have the freedom to choose who you want to pay your bills; knock yourself out.

Tommycat

08-20-2009, 09:10 AM

Why? As long as it's crafted to forgo any bureaucratic errors, then what would be the problem with it? You say you don't want to really pay taxes for other citizens' healthcare; well, you probably already pay taxes for thousands of unknown childrens' educations, so I can't see how this would be any different.

That's just it. We have no way of knowing if it will be. Or if it won't morph into some insanely bureaucratic monster in the future. Keep in mind that even if you trust the current administration and congress to do it right, who's to say what nonsense the next admin will add. or the one after that...

And it's not about paying taxes for other people's healthcare. It's about the same kind of situation as with Welfare. If it ends up that I can be denied because I had healthcare in the past month, or that I made too much money the previous year, or that I don't fit some narrow scope that gets more and more narrow each year, that is what I worry about.

Though from what I can gather, the new proposal is essentially Gubmint Health Insurance which you can choose between that and a private insurance company. Strange as it really does nothing for the unemployed.... a currently growing demographic.

Jae Onasi

08-20-2009, 11:12 AM

Well, you're already paying for those without insurance through your state taxes. When someone develops a catastrophic illness and are uninsured, the expenses end up eating through whatever assets they do have (maybe a small house) and forcing them into bankruptcy and then onto Medicaid. Your state taxes pay for their resultant welfare, food stamps, and so on. You pay for the uninsured who don't pay through higher medical costs that are charged to offset that.

The main reason I brought up the public school example was to show that yes, we do indeed pay for certain programs that aren't limited to just what's in the constitution, and in fact we view this as necessary to society. I view health care coverage the same way--necessary to society. Any of us could be struck down with an illness or injury at any time that disables us and makes us unable to work. That issue is bad enough. Having to deal with a loss of a home on top of that to try to pay for medical care creates a horrendous burden not only for the individual but also for the rest of us who pay taxes to indirectly cover those costs.

mimartin

08-20-2009, 12:02 PM

Well, you're already paying for those without insurance through your state taxes. True, but that is not the only place you are paying for the uninsured and the underinsured. Health care providers pad the bill of the insured to make up for the losses suffered by the uninsured and those that an insurance provider denies the full cost of a procedure. So you are paying for those without insurance or those without adequate insurance when you pay your health care premiums and even your auto premiums.

Those are really the most oblivious, truth be told you are paying for the uninsured every time you make a purchase. If any company in the distribution or manufacturing is American and provides health care insurance to their employees then they are passing that expense on to the consumer. Thus they are also passing along the expense handed to them by padded bills.

Totenkopf

08-20-2009, 09:01 PM

If any company in the distribution or manufacturing is American and provides health care insurance to their employees then they are passing that expense on to the consumer. Thus they are also passing along the expense handed to them by padded bills.

All costs are ultimately born by the consumer, whether they be services or taxes. You can't trust initial cost analysis projections when it comes to the govt (probably the private sector too in cases). Any new entitlement assumed by the govt will ultimately prove much more expensive than its proponents claim. So, we may need to have the system refined, but throwing the baby out with the bath water ain't a solution. The plans currently being fashioned by the dems in Congress and the WH have already been labeld by the nonpartisan CBO as too expensive.

mimartin

08-20-2009, 09:29 PM

But you can trust corporate CEOs. Yea, I never heard of any of them getting into any trouble. :rolleyes:

Totenkopf

08-20-2009, 10:04 PM

As if politicians were any more trustworthy. :rolleyes:

Tommycat

08-20-2009, 10:27 PM

But you can trust corporate CEOs. Yea, I never heard of any of them getting into any trouble. :rolleyes:

I think I would trust a CEO more than a politician. CEO does something wrong, he can face jail time... Politician does something wrong, it's a new LAW

Det. Bart Lasiter

08-20-2009, 10:28 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWwyjwmYMEs hi i'm from the best state in the country how is it in the crap states

Jae Onasi

08-20-2009, 10:35 PM

Here's a link to Obama's site on health care:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/index.php
http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

Note that this article is commenting on what Congress has put on the table, not what Obama wants put on the table--the difference may not be much, but I think it's a distinction to note.

I did notice this article
http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/economy/health_care_reform_middle_class.fortune/index.htm where it says I could pay over 4k/year for health insurance. Guess what? I already do pay a lot in insurance premiums every paycheck.

There's been talk about the rush to get health care passed. Then I heard a radio report where they talked about Sen. Kennedy sending a letter to the MA governor asking if the legislature would consider changing the law about how Senators are chosen should one be able to continue in office (from an election to having the governor choose one--not a wise choice in my opinion, but I understand why Sen. Kennedy wants that from a political standpoint). It occurred to me that the rush might be as simple as the Senate wanting to get it done in time for Sen. Kennedy to see the bill signed before he dies. I think that's not a good reason to rush, even if I understand the sentiment.

mimartin

08-20-2009, 11:09 PM

As if politicians were any more trustworthy. :rolleyes: Some politicians are very trustworthy, some are not. Same goes for CEOs. Never said one was worse than the other. Saying they all are evil is disingenuous.

Totenkopf

08-21-2009, 12:33 AM

No, you didn't actually SAY that. You implied, however, that somehow CEOs were less trustworthy than politicians/govt. Since I didn't actually claim that CEOs were morally superior or even that all politicians were evil, your comment seemed odd. I concur that saying all were evil across the board would be disingenuous, perhaps even paranoid. I don't believe, however, that giving the govt ever more authority over our lives is a smart thing. So, apparently, do most Americans judging by the current response to the healthscare process.

@Jae--I agree. Rushing a bill to make TK "happy" is not a good idea.

mimartin

08-21-2009, 01:37 PM

You implied, however, that somehow CEOs were less trustworthy than politicians/govt. No, I implied that CEOs were just as trustworthy/untrustworthy as politicians.

I believe it is the individual that is either trustworthy or untrustworthy and not the occupation. Labeling everyone within a given occupation and/or political party as corrupt is incorrect despite what O’Reilly or Rush say.

I’ve only meet 2 CEO within the insurance industry. I’d say I trust one and the other not so much. I know two politicians. One was thrown out of office for corruption and the other is still there. Despite my differences in political opinion and my questioning his intelligence in political matters, I do trust Ron Paul does what he believes is best interest of the American people. So, I guess politicians are 50/50 too.

Samuel Dravis

08-21-2009, 01:58 PM

I knew someone who was on the state insurance board in another state. He related a story he'd heard from a VP of an insurance company (from a different state, or he would have had to report this company to the Attorney General for fraud). Insurance companies reject all claims with incomplete information, information in the wrong boxes, wrong codes, wrong diagnoses for the treatment codes, etc. Well, this insurance took all the claims that should have been paid ("clean claims") and just randomly didn't pay 50% of them to see how many people would resubmit the claim. Only 20% of people did. The company made a lot of money that day committing fraud. There definitely needs to be more accountability for insurance companies, and streamlined claims filing so that the companies can't abuse it creating so much paperwork it's almost not worth it to file the claim in the first place.I read an article yesterday about this. It's somewhat long but pretty disturbing (http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/).

Web Rider

08-21-2009, 03:01 PM

For starters we can all start eating better and exercising more, and shoving fewer pills down our throats....and work now, more to come later.

Totenkopf

08-21-2009, 08:39 PM

.....So, I guess politicians are 50/50 too.

That sounds soooo grudging an admission. :lol:

Jae Onasi

08-22-2009, 03:09 AM

I read an article yesterday about this. It's somewhat long but pretty disturbing (http://tauntermedia.com/2009/07/28/unconscionable-math/).

Unfortunately, this doesn't surprise me.

sarpedon2

08-24-2009, 03:21 AM

Umm can an offer an foreigners opinion on the US health care reforms? Universal Health Care is an important option for your country to have along with Private Health Care. As a British citizen, i was fuming every time I saw ignorant or easily led people ranting on tv how bad the NHS is and how socialism is evil. Now the NHS has saved my life or improved it on a number occasions. Firstly when i was born, my family was nearly poor. Thatchers government had nearly crippled every working class worker. We had money, but not much. When I born, I was born with one lung not properly inflated. 2 days old and I developed pneumonia. I would have died without the care of the NHS, which was built by people who cared for people, not money. Had my family been on private health care, we would have been driven into poverty by health care bills. Also throughout my life, I have been constantly in need of inhalers for my chest infections and asthma. It only costs £6.25 prescription charge. You can have hundreds of pills bought here at the same time, and it would be the same price. How much is it to buy stuff like that over on your side?

Now what annoys most about the people who are on TV mocking universal health care, is that they are people who can afford the health care over there. There is an estimated 50 million people in America uninsured. They can't afford the current health care and with a economic recession on, people will be in even worse poverty. So should nearly 1/4 of the population should be left to die? I don't understand America's health care that well, but this is do know. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), America is currently 37th in the world with their health care, we are 18th. France; one of the largest socialist countries in the western world, is 1st.

Some of you probably won't agree with my view, hopefully some will. But if you have sympathy for your fellow citizens who are is far worse state of health than you might be, then accept that Universal Health Care might be a more better and more humane approach to treating them then forcing them to have health care they can't afford.

Totenkopf

08-24-2009, 07:49 AM

One of the biggest problems people in this country have re the helathcare debate is wrapping their heads around the actual number of people who can't get coverage. The ~50 million figure has been proven false (much like claims about the number homeless and the prevelance of AIDS, etc..). When you strip away all the people who don't buy insurance they could afford, as well as the number of illegals, the number drops to <1/4 of the 50+/- that gets bandied about. That's why reinventing the wheel makes no sense. Fix the system, not replace it with a whole new one that has its own set of problems.

mimartin

08-24-2009, 01:42 PM

Well let’s see about adding some of those back. ;)

How many American’s have health insurance, but are what can be described as underinsured? What I mean is they pay for major medical coverage, but has nothing for Vision or Dental? How many have a huge deducible and co-pay in order to afford the coverage?

I have no clue, but I will answer that I meet the criteria on all counts. So does a few people in L.A. as I posted in another thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYoB-bVYrPQ

Totenkopf

08-24-2009, 01:57 PM

Well let’s see about adding some of those back. ;)

Which ones? The interesting thing about discussions like these is that it shows the divide between dems/reps/indep and lib/con is usually not over the existence of a problem but the solutions. I find it interesting that people who accuse the govt of wasteful spending on the military and other things seems to think this same group of people are going to manage something as massive as healthcare in a fair and efficient manner. The current state of SS as well as Medicare/caid programs demonstrate that govt pretty much sucks at running things. The private sector has it's share of thieves and incompetents, to be sure, but I'd rather deal with knaves that can be corralled by govt than a govt that condescends to think we work for it. :carms:

mimartin

08-24-2009, 02:12 PM

I just know it is not being managed efficiently and it certainly isn’t being managed fairly now. I don’t know if the government could do it better, but I have enough pride in my country to think if Europe, Australia and Canada can do it, so can we.

My suggestion is if they want to keep health care private, then they should standardize coverage and claims forms through regulation. That way doctors do not have to call the insurance company to know if something is covered or not. By standardize claims forms and requirements it would save doctors time and money in having to fill out different forms and have different requirements for each company. Really regulate health insurance, the companies will of course balk at this, but it is time for the doctors to focus on the patience’s health and not the insurance companies. The Property and Causality companies pretty much have to deal with these types of regulations now.

Totenkopf

08-24-2009, 04:23 PM

My suggestion is if they want to keep health care private, then they should standardize coverage and claims forms through regulation. That way doctors do not have to call the insurance company to know if something is covered or not. By standardize claims forms and requirements it would save doctors time and money in having to fill out different forms and have different requirements for each company. Really regulate health insurance, the companies will of course balk at this, but it is time for the doctors to focus on the patience’s health and not the insurance companies. The Property and Causality companies pretty much have to deal with these types of regulations now.

Greater streamlining of insurance practices would likely lead to better efficiencies due to the lack of an office needing several employees just to process med claims, as well as hopefully less confusion.

Well, we seem to agree on at least this much. ;)

mimartin

08-24-2009, 05:17 PM

Well, we seem to agree on at least this much. ;) Problem is the insurance companies would never agree to what I suggested. Most likely if implement they would voluntarily leave the market. Even having uniformed claims forms is a major stumbling block as it limits deniability.

and these are the people that claim they have the American peoples best interest at heart. :rolleyes:

Q

08-24-2009, 05:45 PM

^Um, don't you work for an insurance company?

Let's hope that none of your superiors sees this thread. :xp:

mimartin

08-24-2009, 05:57 PM

I am an insurance agent, who is licensed to sell health insurance. I however will not sell anything I do not trust or that I would not buy myself. So I have not sold any health insurance for 3 or 4 years. I trust some of the companies to pay their claim and I trust some not to non-renew at the first sign of health problems. I do not trust any of them to do both.

Q

08-24-2009, 07:10 PM

I hope that you didn't take that as an insult. I was complementing your honesty while acknowledging the irony. :)

Totenkopf

08-24-2009, 11:30 PM

Problem is the insurance companies would never agree to what I suggested. Most likely if implement they would voluntarily leave the market. Even having uniformed claims forms is a major stumbling block as it limits deniability.

Well, streamlining of forms shouldn't be any big deal on an industry-wide basis. Merely a matter of everyone having to use the same types of coding for the same kinds of procedures. If by regulation you mean making the insurance companies cover everything (not sure how draconian your level of regulation would be), some probably would fall by the wayside, though I doubt the biggest players would disappear. Too much money to just walk away.

and these are the people that claim they have the American peoples best interest at heart. :rolleyes:

Well, that makes them have something in common with the politicians that want to take their place. :lol:

Ten-96

09-07-2009, 01:08 AM

This may have been covered previously but I'll post it anyway: There is nothing wrong with our "Health Care." The problem lies in Health Insurance coverage for those that cannot afford it. The solutions to the insurance problem can be solved in a number of ways without adding further burden to our already sky-rocketing debt. Not to mention the inflated number being touted by those in favor of universal coverage.

1. Allow consumers to cross state lines to purchase plans. This will inevitably reduce the cost of insurance due to interstate competition.

2. Tort Reform. In all honesty, is a cut on the lip from a dental drill really worth 2 million dollars?

3. Expand Medicaid to those that really need it; ie. current, legal citizens or those with valid, current Visas. Those who aren't covered by their parents or their current employer. Those on public assistance as well as the recently unemployed.

urluckyday

09-07-2009, 04:45 PM

Right or wrong. Reform or not. The debate will split the country more than anything in recent memory. I have never seen so much outward anger by both sides of an argument in my lifetime.

I personally don't want it to be reformed at this time (I think there are more important things that should be fixed first) and I don't really trust our president to do a good job reforming the system...that's just me. It's just one of those things...in a perfect world, and if people were perfect, the kind of reform that Obama wants would be great...the same way communism looks on paper...but in real life...not possible.

Darth Avlectus

09-07-2009, 06:19 PM

^^^You mean like if the economy is reportedly doing well now, could we please stop adding stimulus spending? That's one thing I'd like addressed about our system. Just saying...

vanir

09-07-2009, 11:15 PM

Our healthcare system in Oz rocks. It's awesome. I don't know how we do it. I didn't get that much work last financial year and earned a basic 33, yet still got well over a thousand back in a return and am fully covered (elective surgery has a long wait but even that's often covered), plus individual pay packets are taxed very conservatively, I'll pay about a hundred on seven, and about one-fifty on thirteen hundred. Even at a relatively high hourly rate I get to spend nearly all the money I make and still get great tax returns and full coverage. On top of this the economy seems pretty good.
For a regular working stiff it's great news, even a minimum wage earner gets full coverage, even if it's a relatively bad deal as far as small luxuries and weekly standard of living goes (rent is high). I'm about midway on the scale of basic wages I guess, management might get 43, but then my hours are mostly part time.

Dunno how we do it.

jonathan7

09-09-2009, 11:01 AM

I leave the debate of Universal Health Care in the US to the Americans, I did however want to destroy the lies of several Politicians. If you are a Republican i can only press upon you that these lying politicians are a disgrace to your party, and you should be very worried in an argument when someone has to resort to lies to support their argument. Matters were not helped when a British MEP went on US television and lied about the system (he did so for financial gain).

It would seem to me, it is only best in an informed debate to have all the facts, and lies and distortions about the NHS, is a slander against the UK, and is a dishonour to all our Healthcare profesionals who work very hard for our health.

David Blunkett, one of the UK's most senior politicians, and one of the few modern members of the Labour party I have respect for, and who wonderfully articulates my feelings on this matter had the following to say;

Sir, The row about the intervention by the Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan in the healthcare debate in the United States raises issues besides the question of whether or not he has “betrayed” the NHS (report, TimesOnline, Aug 14).

While it is certainly true that the adverts put out by those campaigning against Barack Obama’s proposals are packed full of lies and distortions, it is also true that anyone visiting the US would also appreciate one other, rather important, fact: that the tens of millions of Americans not fully covered by health insurance are being betrayed by foreigners intervening in the debate.

It is not the damage to the reputation of the NHS (important as that is), but the terrible harm to the most disadvantaged in the US — the poorest men and women, those who have just lost their jobs — with which we should be most concerned.

It was, therefore, deeply unfortunate to hear the Shadow Health Secretary on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme on Aug 14 suggesting that politicians in this country intervene to stop cancer drugs being prescribed to those who need them. Andrew Lansley knows perfectly well that, as with the adverts in the US, he was choosing to dissemble and distort the reality of how decisions are made here about prioritisation and clinical need.

Those who tell untruths about our own system in order to deny others the benefit of even modest improvements in health coverage in another country need to examine deeply their conscience and their morality.

David Blunkett, MP

House of Commons

I wish to go on further and quote a US Workers site, which is attempting to debunk several of the lies with regards the NHS.

Opponents to President Obama’s healthcare reform plan have circulated a number of serious lies and gross distortions about the UK’s National Health Service to defend their own interests and scupper plans that will help the 47 million Americans currently without healthcare cover.

What is the NHS?

The UK’s National Health Service provides a wide range of healthcare services - everything from antenatal screening and routine treatments for coughs and colds to open heart surgery, accident and emergency treatment and end-of-life care to the whole UK population of 60million people.

Most importantly it is free for people to access healthcare and 1 million patients are seen every 36 hours.

The NHS funded by general taxation and is organised and run at a local, regional level. It is one of the most efficient, most egalitarian and most comprehensive in the world, looking after everyone from their birth to their death. It is an institution supported by every major political party in Britain and the British population, who have been responding to the Republican attacks on the NHS on Twitter, at #welovethe NHS by posting their own stories of how the NHS has saved and improved the lives of them and their loved ones, for free.

LIE 1: that older people do not receive treatment on the NHS

Ted Kennedy, 77, would not be treated for his brain tumour if he was in Britain because he is too old (Charles Grassley, Republican senator from Iowa)

In England, anyone over 59 years of age cannot receive heart repairs, stents or bypass because it is not covered as being too expensive and not needed, (an anonymously authored, but widely circulated, email).

THE TRUTH

There is no ban on anyone of any age receiving any treatment – indeed, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of age when providing services. Professor Peter Weissberg, the medical director of the British Heart Foundation, an independent charity, says that “Growing numbers of patients over 65 with heart conditions are having surgery, including valve repairs and heart bypass surgery”. Additionally, the average age at which people have a bypass operation has risen from 58 in 1991 to 66 in 2008.Decisions over whether to recommend and perform surgery or prescribe drugs are clinical decisions, taken on a case by case basis on what is best for each patient.

An 81 year old member of my family recently recieved treatment :|

LIE 2: officials decide the ‘worth’ of each person’s life, denying treatment to those who are deemed ‘worthless’.

People such as scientist Stephen Hawking [who has Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative illness] wouldn't have a chance in the UK, where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." (Investors Business Daily)

Government health officials in England have decided that $22,750 (£14,000) is what six months' life is worth. Under their socialised system, if a medical treatment costs more, you're out of luck (Club for Growth)

THE TRUTH
Professor Stephen Hawking lives and works in Britain and received NHS treatment as recently as April 2009. He has responded to the above claim by saying that he “wouldn't be here today if it were not for the NHS. I have received a large amount of high-quality treatment without which I would not have survived”.

In Britain, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) decides whether new drugs represent value for money for the NHS. There has been a gross misrepresentation of its role; Nice assesses new drugs by looking at the amount and quality of extended life it is hoped the patient will gain by looking at the medical evidence. The current ceiling is £30,000 for a full course of treatment but exceptions are made.

What really, really irks me about the above, is actualyl the above seems a lot more like the US system were your either rich enough to get insurance health care or your not. Medicare does not cover everyone as I have American friends who are not covered. It seems to me that in the US some people are deemed "Worthless" because they don't earn enough. Which seems a lot more akin to choosing who gets treatment or not.

Further more the quote on Hawking can only of been said by a moron, considering he is so ignorant of facts that the fact Hawking is British and is treated by the NHS seems to ahve escaped him.

LIE 3: rationing means people are not able to access the treatment they need for serious conditions.

In Britain, 40% of cancer patients are never able to see an oncologist; there is explicit rationing for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery and care for the terminally ill. (Conservatives for Patients' Rights)

The British NHS "does not allow" women under 25 to receive screening for cervical cancer (Jim DeMint, Republican senator from South Carolina)

THE TRUTH
There is no ‘rationing’ for services such as kidney dialysis, open heart surgery or end of life care.

The above claim about cancer is from an out of date, 15 year old study. In 2000 a 10 year programme was launched, setting key targets for improvement. The National Audit Office, which is responsible for analyzing how effectively the government spends money, reported in 2005 that 99.2%of people who are referred by their doctor with suspected cancer see a specialist within 2 weeks and 89.9% of patients diagnosed with cancer begin treatment within 31 days.

There is an ‘End of Life Care Strategy’ that “aims to improve access to high quality care for adults approaching the end of life. This care should be available wherever the person might be, ie at home, in a care home, in hospital, in a hospice, or somewhere else.”

All women over 25 are routinely and regularly invited for a cervical smear. Any woman, at any age, who presents symptoms of cervical cancer will receive a smear test if their doctor thinks it is appropriate.

There has never been rationing in the NHS!

The NHS does have problems, of that I'm not denying, but until the coming of the Scandinavian countries in the 70's and 80's. The NHS was the best Health Care System in the world. And funnily enough Sweden which has the best Health Care system in the world, is Universal Health Care - it is a copy of the NHS, but is much more efficiently run.

Regardless the NHS still today remains one of the best health systems in the world. Just a personal example - My Grandmother and mum, have both had breast cancer and been treated for it, my cousin David twice had cancer - and was treated at one of the top 5 cancer treatment centres in the entire world it did unfortunatly get him the second time. My grandfather recieved treatment for his Altzheimers and recieved free nursing care home when he was too bad to stay at home.

I leave the rest of you to debate the merits of Universal Health Care. But please leave lies about the NHS out of the discussion. Suffice to say I was extremely angry about some of the American politicians claimsl and they are lucky they aren't in the same room as me, as I'm that angry at their lies that I'd make hellraiser seem like a film suitable for small children after I'd finished with them.

mimartin

09-09-2009, 11:12 AM

1. Allow consumers to cross state lines to purchase plans. This will inevitably reduce the cost of insurance due to interstate competition. Great idea, but one question: Who would regulate these cross state policies? Right now, the insurance companies are regulated by the state department of insurance. However, which state will have jurisdiction in what you advocating?

Or are you advocating the Federal Government regulate Health Insurance Companies?

2. Tort Reform. In all honesty, is a cut on the lip from a dental drill really worth 2 million dollars? Yes, you can find silly cases to make your point. How about limiting all lawsuits to 5 thousand, 10 thousand or something like that? Just how much is a life worth?

As a friend point out to me I over simplified this:

If someone killed one of your family members would you not want them punished?

Or at the very least, have your family member’s death mean something by being a deterrent to others not to make the same mistake that caused that loved ones death?

Web Rider

09-09-2009, 11:53 AM

I haven't been part of the debate, but I thought I'd throw this wonderful gem out. Not only have Democrats allowed Republicans to completely undermine Obama's ideas, but now they're doing it too. Under these new proposals, people could be fined almost $4k for not having health insurance. Because really, people who can't afford it are totally hiding away money in secret.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_care_overhaul

Totenkopf

09-09-2009, 01:10 PM

Matters were not helped when a British MEP went on US television and lied about the system (he did so for financial gain).

What gain and from whom? The "fee" paid by news/entertainment shows to have guests? A book deal? Source?

I did find the charge of "betraying" the NHS by the other pol somewhat over-the-top.

@mimartin--well, that's pretty much the argument about guns, right? The feds take precedence over the state on matters crossing state lines? It would certainly defang the govt's claim that you need a public system to introduce the concept of competitive pricing.

As to the whole lawsuit deal, yes. There needs to be a limit as to what people can sue for in the end. We are talking about other peoples' jobs and welfare too. Right now there are limits on how much you can sue a nursing home for, so there's no reason that that shouldn't extend elsewhere. Besides, aren't actuarial tables used to determine what fair compensation is anyway? You don't get as much money for someone that's 70 as you would for someone that's 25-30 and at the beginning of their earning years, right?

Frankly, tort reform is absolutely essential to help this economy recover on a number of fronts. I can sysmpathize with the desire to see people punished for wrongdoing/incompetence. Unfortunately the legal system has become a lot like the national lottery b/c there are too many lawyers and they aren't regulated nearly enough. Like locusts set loose upon America's financial landscape.

......Under these new proposals, people could be fined almost $4k for not having health insurance. Because really, people who can't afford it are totally hiding away money in secret.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/..._care_overhaul

Yeah, it might be ineresting to see someone actually squeeze blood from a stone. Likely those people would be forced onto Medicaid or some other govt run program. No doubt this will be primarily aimed at people who can afford it but won't buy it. Even MA apparently has a segment of its population that isn't covevered despite the state mandate for insurance(2-3% or so).

mimartin

09-09-2009, 01:30 PM

There is an easier solution than fining those that choice not to purchase health insurance, do not provide emergency care to those that choice not to purchase insurance and cannot afford the service required. If you can’t pay, you can’t play. Simple, inhumane, but simple.

So we get rid of punitive damages. Then we can use the most “cost efficient” forms of health care and not necessarily what is best for the patient. Got it. Just like the auto manufacturer that decided it was cheaper to leave the exploding gas tank in the trucks rather than to recall the problem.

Totenkopf

09-09-2009, 01:41 PM

Your jumping to conclusions. I implied a cap, not an absence. No matter how you cut it, though, $$ is limited. There are going to be solutions that leave someone unhappy. The only other solution is quicker insolvency and across the board suffering for ALL. A public option is especially irresponsible when the govt can't even run the systems it does have without runnng deficits. Would you let someone control your finances if they kept spending you into the ground and beyond? W/o ever higher taxes to cover it's expenses, the govt plan would only go deeper into the red. History has proven that. How much of your $$ to you want to give to a dishonest and inept group of politicians that promise the stars and can't even deliver the moon....

As to the car thing....caveat emptor springs to mind. Also, are you referring to the rigged ABC experiment about unsafe gas tanks? Regardless, the solution is to go after the people who run the company, not sue the company into the ground...unless the govt intends to expand welfare roles eventually.

mimartin

09-09-2009, 01:57 PM

Regardless, the solution is to go after the people who run the company, not sue the company into the ground...unless the govt intends to expand welfare roles eventually.

Uncertainty kills an economy. So are you advocating we redefine the very definition of what a corporation is at this time? Otherwise this goes against the very definition of what a corporation is and why companies incorporate.

Totenkopf

09-09-2009, 03:17 PM

In a word, no.

jonathan7

09-09-2009, 03:52 PM

What gain and from whom? The "fee" paid by news/entertainment shows to have guests? A book deal? Source?

Educated guess work, plus as I will show his charachter is extremely suspect anyway; however seeing as you wished for sources, here we go...

Daniel Hannan's hero is one of the worst racist politicians in UK history - and you want to listen to this man? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209319/Maverick-Tory-MEP-Daniel-Hannan-heaps-praise-Enoch-Powell.html)

'In the British context, Enoch Powell ... as somebody who understood the importance of national democracy, who understood why you need to live in an independent country and what that meant, as well as being a free marketeer and a small-government Conservative.'

I find it curious how someone understand the "importance of national democracy" while wanting to deport the none white members of the electorate. Living in an independant country presumably means you can deport who you want.

I did find the charge of "betraying" the NHS by the other pol somewhat over-the-top.

Well he lied (and I can go out and proove what he said was BS if you really want :xp:), as well as saying it had been a bad idea for 60 years - given that every Doctors I know (and my dad's one so I know a lot), are in favour of the NHS, I don't care what some pretentious racist toff, who is all probability fiddling his MEP expences thinks, and I like it even less when he airs stupid views which are not in keeping with the general views of his electorate.

He's an elected official - and I guarantee that every Brit I've so far spoken to thinks he should be sacked. We're outraged by his comments because they are false, and the options are he's a) Stupid or b) A Liar. Given he's a politician the latter is far more likely to be true; though given he's ignorant enough to liek Enoch "Hitler" Powell, it's probably a mixture of the two.

mimartin

09-09-2009, 05:11 PM

In a word, no.Then you are not advocating this, the solution is to go after the people who run the company, , because by the current definition of corporation this is impossible.

Totenkopf

09-09-2009, 05:28 PM

Educated guess work, plus as I will show his charachter is extremely suspect anyway; however seeing as you wished for sources, here we go...
Click Me (http://www.labourlist.org/rubbishing_the_nhs_business_or_pleasure_theo_black well)
Furthermore something you should know about this charming politician.
Daniel Hannan's hero is one of the worst racist politicians in UK history - and you want to listen to this man? (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209319/Maverick-Tory-MEP-Daniel-Hannan-heaps-praise-Enoch-Powell.html)

Ok, thanks for links. I'll research this Enoch charachter. Hopefully the scorn is not somehow misplaced. By which I mean, if one opposes illegal immigrants in the US they are branded by our left as bigots and haters b/c of the disproportionate number of latinos amonst that group.

He's an elected official - and I guarantee that every Brit I've so far spoken to thinks he should be sacked. We're outraged by his comments because they are false, and the options are he's a) Stupid or b) A Liar. Given he's a politician the latter is far more likely to be true; though given he's ignorant enough to liek Enoch "Hitler" Powell, it's probably a mixture of the two.

Nice to see that political cynicism is universal. However, how popular is he among the general electorate that votes him into the EP and not just w/in specific portions (ie Tory/Labour/etc..).

jonathan7

09-09-2009, 05:36 PM

Ok, thanks for links. I'll research this Enoch charachter. Hopefully the scorn is not somehow misplaced. By which I mean, if one opposes illegal immigrants in the US they are branded by our left as bigots and haters b/c of the disproportionate number of latinos amonst that group.

Well Enoch was for throwing out all the none whites, i.e. the legal ones, though he never went as far as that in public life; he was however eventually forced out after his infamous "Rivers of Blood speech"; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell

Nice to see that political cynicism is universal. However, how popular is he among the general electorate that votes him into the EP and not just w/in specific portions (ie Tory/Labour/etc..).

He's not popular at all, he's only in the MEP because he comes from a strong Tory area...

Anyways, I feel we're somewhat off-topic here ;)

Jae Onasi

09-09-2009, 08:13 PM

Obama is speaking to a joint session of Congress right now about healthcare. I'll post a link to the transcript when it's posted on the news sites.

Totenkopf

09-09-2009, 08:34 PM

Cool, reading the transcript will take MUCH less time than actually listening to it.

Web Rider

09-09-2009, 09:06 PM

Cool, reading the transcript will take MUCH less time than actually listening to it.

You mean the all of 45 min it took to listen to it?

Honestly, it was worth it to see the Republicans look pathetic. I mean god, they held up signs and shouted at the president. WTF is wrong with these people?

EDIT: OMG, the Republican response is sooooo lame. It completely ignores everything Obama said and resorts to the same "More taxes, rationing, more debt, reduced care." :ugh:

Totenkopf

09-09-2009, 09:34 PM

You mean the all of 45 min it took to listen to it?

Yep, there are better ways to waste my time than watch political theatre like that.

Seeing as how it took less than 15 minutes to read, it was time well saved for other activities. ;)

Ping

09-13-2009, 09:03 AM

Honestly, it was worth it to see the Republicans look pathetic. I mean god, they held up signs and shouted at the president. WTF is wrong with these people?

I ask myself that quite often. The Republicans don't seem to realize that they're digging their own grave, but for all I care, they can. If they won't cooperate with the government, then what use are they? I'm not saying the U.S. should be a one party nation or anything like that, I'm just trying to think of this in a practical manner.

Totenkopf

09-13-2009, 12:56 PM

EDIT: OMG, the Republican response is sooooo lame. It completely ignores everything Obama said and resorts to the same "More taxes, rationing, more debt, reduced care." :ugh:

It must surprise you that not everyone takes BO's word as "gospel", which is surprising coming from you. Even the NYT and other sources have since expressed doubts about BO's grasp of math. He's mostly made speeches that are long on surface and short on substance.

@Ping--you do realize that it's not only the reps that question this president but also independents and even democrats? He's even having problems w/in his own party. Will be interesting to see if they can muster the numbers and will to cut out the reps and other opponents. Frankly, it's a bit too early to write the obit for either party at this point.

Ping

09-13-2009, 02:09 PM

@Ping--you do realize that it's not only the reps that question this president but also independents and even democrats? He's even having problems w/in his own party. Will be interesting to see if they can muster the numbers and will to cut out the reps and other opponents. Frankly, it's a bit too early to write the obit for either party at this point.

I have never seen or heard anything to suggest he's having trouble with his own party. Independents, maybe, but not his own party. And frankly, if the Republicans want to stay in the ball game, they ought to swallow their pride and just cooperate for once, instead of spreading misinformation about Obama's health care plan. Spreading misinformation and lies is the lowest someone could possibly go to.

Totenkopf

09-13-2009, 03:38 PM

I have never seen or heard anything to suggest he's having trouble with his own party. Independents, maybe, but not his own party. And frankly, if the Republicans want to stay in the ball game, they ought to swallow their pride and just cooperate for once, instead of spreading misinformation about Obama's health care plan. Spreading misinformation and lies is the lowest someone could possibly go to.

You've heard of Blue Dog democrats, right? That's one faction. The problem with the whole healthcare debate is that the dems are being dishonest about a great number of things, from types of coverage to ultimate cost. If the reps, among others, don't want to go along with that, that's likely a good thing. If you think that the lib dem's opponents are the only ones not being on the up-and-up, that's a bit naive. Btw, by "swallow their pride cooperate" you seem to be implying "rubber stammping".

Ping

09-13-2009, 04:42 PM

You've heard of Blue Dog democrats, right? That's one faction. The problem with the whole healthcare debate is that the dems are being dishonest about a great number of things, from types of coverage to ultimate cost. If the reps, among others, don't want to go along with that, that's likely a good thing. If you think that the lib dem's opponents are the only ones not being on the up-and-up, that's a bit naive. Btw, by "swallow their pride cooperate" you seem to be implying "rubber stammping".

I'm not trying to imply rubber stamping, so forgive me for doing so. Also, show me hard evidence that the Dems are lying about health care reform. Do I think they're telling the truth 100%? No, I haven't seen a politician who is 100% honest, but that doesn't mean they're telling a 100% lie. If you honestly believe everything the conservatives say is true, think again. You can't believe everything people say.

Totenkopf

09-13-2009, 06:42 PM

Well, first, I didn't say EVERYTHING they said was a lie (100%?). Since you acknowledge that they aren't telling 100% the truth....what does that leave? That you also believe that they are lying about some things. Second, I never claimed to believe 100% of anything anyone has said. There is nothing wrong with a healthy sense of skepticism.

Ping

09-13-2009, 08:00 PM

Well, first, I didn't say EVERYTHING they said was a lie (100%?). Since you acknowledge that they aren't telling 100% the truth....what does that leave? That you also believe that they are lying about some things. Second, I never claimed to believe 100% of anything anyone has said. There is nothing wrong with a healthy sense of skepticism.

My only thing about the skepticism: your post kind of implied that the Dems were wrong about almost everything, if not everything they say, so that led me to believe that you thought that the Dems lied about everything, so that led to a misunderstanding. ;)

jonathan7

09-13-2009, 08:04 PM

My only thing about the skepticism: your post kind of implied that the Dems were wrong about almost everything, if not everything they say, so that led me to believe that you thought that the Dems lied about everything, so that led to a misunderstanding. ;)

Well, I'd say fundementally the Republicans think the Democrats are basically wrong, and the Democrats think the Republicans are wrong ;)

Ulmont

09-13-2009, 08:29 PM

There's an old saying that I find applies here:

"Republicans have nothing but bad ideas, and Democrats have no ideas."

Totenkopf

09-13-2009, 09:12 PM

My only thing about the skepticism: your post kind of implied that the Dems were wrong about almost everything, if not everything they say, so that led me to believe that you thought that the Dems lied about everything, so that led to a misunderstanding. ;)

No prob. This whole healthcare debate is ultimately coming down to a question of private vs govt control of that part of the economy. I think both parties see many of the same problems....incomplete coverage, recision, high premiums, ad nauseam... :D ...but have funadamentally different approaches to the solution. Many liberals, especially progressives, wish to see the fed govt become even bigger b/c they see the govt as the solution to most of life's problems. Many real conservatives are constantly trying to keep govt from getting inexorably larger. You find both liberals and conservatives, depending on the issues at hand, w/in both parties. While I obviously trend conservative, I don't axiomatically think that all liberals have their heads up their arse about everything (my family, like many, is a mixed lot in that area). Besides, being wrong doesn't mean they're necessarily lying....unless perhaps to themselves. ;)

Darth Avlectus

09-14-2009, 01:22 AM

What I see happening that I don't like about it, is the bureaucracy in the insurance companies basically moving under the government's roof and granted certain immunity, as well as the immunity granted doctors on malpractice.
When I am told "No it won't happen" and yet I see a proposed mushrooming in the size, involvement, and power of government, I am left frowning. I just don't see any way around these.

JediAthos

09-16-2009, 12:18 PM

The Senate released their version of a healthcare reform bill today. Among the points of the bill are:

-Designed to be implemented over 10 years costing $856 billion dollars payed for by cuts in govt. programs and new taxes and fees

-Requires all individuals to purchase healthcare or pay a fine with those who cannot afford premiums being exempt.

-language prohibiting insurance company practices such as charging people more who have more serious health problems

-the ability for consumers to shop and compare plans via new insurance exchanges, expansion of Medicaid and caps on yearly health care costs.

-Instead of a govt. insurance option the plan proposes a system of member owned co-ops

-Prevents federal funds for being used for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or medical danger to the mother's life however plans purchased through the insurance exchange could offer coverage for abortions provided no federal subsidies are used.

-everyone covered by an employer would learn the full cost of their health coverage as it would be disclosed on the W-2 form beginning next year.

I have to say I'm not sure that the abortion part of the bill will fly given the strong opinions on the subject. I also don't like the fact that there are no provisions addressing medical malpractice insurance either. I believe that is something that needs to be addressed. I'm also not sure fining people who don't buy coverage is a good idea unless they can reign in how much insurance companies charge for coverage.

I do like the idea of reigning in the way insurance companies can charge people who have health conditions. I believe it's borderline criminal the way they do things now.

mimartin

09-16-2009, 12:53 PM

Too little and waiting too late to do what really needs to be done. Special Interest and Big Business has watered down any meaningful reform and we have allowed ourselves to be compromised into more of the same old same. Too bad, before the special interest and big business money started rolling in and using scare tactics there was a chance for real reform. Instead all we get is a band-aid when a tourniquet is required. Typical American response, let’s do as little as possible and hope for the best. Why am I not surprised?

Jae Onasi

09-16-2009, 01:36 PM

We'll have to see what the House version looks like--I think it goes quite a bit farther than the Senate version. Then they'll have to resolve the differences to get something passed. I definitely want to see tort reform, too.

Darth Avlectus

09-16-2009, 02:31 PM

REQUIRED to have ins or pay a fine? That sucks. Why did I have a feeling THIS was going to fly? OH wait, b/c $$$ talks and BS walks.

Y'know, mimartin, I liked your proposed idea better: just don't give emergency care to those who don't have any coverage. Yes, I know I'm in that crowd, but honestly, I can pay for ins. if I ever need it.

Totenkopf

09-16-2009, 02:39 PM

I don't know what they'll eventually try to pass in the end, but it appears that Reid and company intend to use the "nuke" option if they can't muster enough votes the "normal" way. Frankly, government controlled options should be a non-starter. Regulation is one thing, but having the govt actually run it is nonviable in the end. It has become sad that many Americans seem to believe "if but for govt action, my life would be so hard/suck so bad". Tort reform, allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines to increase competition and some tighter regulations (no recision, portability, etc...) is really all that's needed. Should anyone fall through those "cracks", the net you'd need to cast would be much smaller.

Perhaps, as a kind of adjunct, med school costs should be driven down to encourage more people do think of being a doctor as not an overly expensive option. All the tech and govt promises in the world mean squat w/o the personell to carry them out.

mimartin

09-16-2009, 03:44 PM

Y'know, mimartin, I liked your proposed idea better: just don't give emergency care to those who don't have any coverage. Well even if everyone buys insurance under the Senate’s plan we will still be paying for the uninsured through our insurance premiums. Just they will not be legalized Americans. You think Emergency rooms are going to turn away illegal aliens? No, so we will still be paying for the uninsured. Sure keeping the illegal’s off the roles politically sounds good, at least until you really think about it. We should make them pay too and not get a free ride. Better yet, enforce our own immigration laws.

Totenkopf

09-16-2009, 05:28 PM

.... We should make them pay too and not get a free ride. Better yet, enforce our own immigration laws.

That's too true. Send them home and let them come in the nornmal way. As to businesses hiring them......fine 'em worse if need be (ie jail time).

Jae Onasi

09-16-2009, 05:58 PM

If they're illegals, bill the country they're still citizens of and them. IIRC, when a citizen from a country with universal health care has an emergency in the US (if they're on vacation in the US and have an accident for instance), their country's health care system gets billed.

Darth Avlectus

09-16-2009, 06:32 PM

^^^Even if mexico is like #12 or 13 place economy in the world, Mexico is broke, no? Do you really think we're going to see anything from them?

Well even if everyone buys insurance under the Senate’s plan we will still be paying for the uninsured through our insurance premiums. Just they will not be legalized Americans. You think Emergency rooms are going to turn away illegal aliens? No, so we will still be paying for the uninsured. Sure keeping the illegal’s off the roles politically sounds good, at least until you really think about it. We should make them pay too and not get a free ride. Better yet, enforce our own immigration laws.

Yeah tell me about it. I see those big paint vans with worried drivers that follow the nice car with a license plate that says Garcia or such. If our economy did not foster an undercurrent of such reliance upon "ultra-cheap labor", enforcing our immigration laws might become more feasible.

Good luck getting them to pay anything, though. If the way they leapfrog around in car accident cases (at least in northern NV) is any indication, you'd have it easier trying to record a boxing match between shrek and bigfoot. They play a game of attrition with the authorities, with plaintiffs, and prosecutors in court. Even should you win, they will never pay you anything.

@ Totenkopf: Unfortunately many of them who have nowhere to go already do end up in jail. Which is costing us money that way. So we're getting shafted one way or the other. Sucks.

jonathan7

09-16-2009, 06:33 PM

If they're illegals, bill the country they're still citizens of and them. IIRC, when a citizen from a country with universal health care has an emergency in the US (if they're on vacation in the US and have an accident for instance), their country's health care system gets billed.

I know quite abit about this after my dad was sick in the U.S - I also confess your healthcare system did not leave me impressed at all, quite frankly it's crap when compared to the U.K.

Not in the case of the UK, the British Government would not pay for the treatment of a Brit in America. A British Citizen abroad is in charge of there own health bills - the thinking, I presume is, if an individual is abroad then they are rich enough to pay the bill for insurance. Although within the EU there are reciprical healthcare agreements, so you don't need it when traveling to some parts of the EU such as France. You totally need it when abroad; especially the US where quite frankly everything is stupidly expensive (my dad who is a Doctor commented how outrageous his bill for even basic consultations cost; and the real cost of what he was being given was peanuts).

JediAthos

09-16-2009, 07:46 PM

I know quite abit about this after my dad was sick in the U.S - I also confess your healthcare system did not leave me impressed at all, quite frankly it's crap when compared to the U.K.

Not in the case of the UK, the British Government would not pay for the treatment of a Brit in America. A British Citizen abroad is in charge of there own health bills - the thinking, I presume is, if an individual is abroad then they are rich enough to pay the bill for insurance. Although within the EU there are reciprical healthcare agreements, so you don't need it when traveling to some parts of the EU such as France. You totally need it when abroad; especially the US where quite frankly everything is stupidly expensive (my dad who is a Doctor commented how outrageous his bill for even basic consultations cost; and the real cost of what he was being given was peanuts).

I couldn't agree with you more about the costs here in the States. I am fortunate in that I have really good coverage from my employer, which incidentally is a medical imaging manufacturer, but I see what the doctor bills the insurance company for just for office visits for my kids and it's crazy. We paid something in the neighborhood of almost $500.00 for an emergency room visit for my son and that was without an ambulance ride.

It amazes me that they can charge so much, but I also know that malpractice insurance costs help drive up the prices and I"m sure the economy doesn't help either but I've always felt if other countries can keep their healthcare costs reasonable we should be able to do it too, but I think mimartin made a very good point about special interests, and money and whatnot that has us in the state we're in now with healthcare.

jonathan7

09-16-2009, 07:52 PM

Interestingly my dad did want to convey to you all that should any American need Emergency Health Care in the UK you have it free and no questions asked - unlike Brits in America...

mimartin

09-16-2009, 08:55 PM

Can’t speak for today, but in 1990 I dislocated my shoulder for the first time (happened a lot since) in Lynkland (also know as Australia). Sydney to be precise. Was in and out of the emergency room in 45 mins and the cost to me was nothing. Here I would have spent the entire day in the emergency room and I don’t want to even think of the cost. In America when I dislocate my shoulder I put it back myself.

Darth333

09-16-2009, 09:04 PM

If there is something I wouldn't give up (and don't mind paying taxes for) in Canada it is the universal health care.

As for the lies I've seen in the US news concerning old people, dad is well in his 80's, has serious health problems and receives more care than he even wants - he has to sign-off every time he wants to refuse some services - and mom, also over 75, got non-urgent hip replacement surgery within 3-4 weeks following diagnostic. One of my aunts who is 79 is currently receiving care 8 hours/day at home without worrying about the costs (it took only one phone call and a two-day delay to arrange).

Personally, when I need to see a doctor, I just show up at the local clinic and can normally see one within 20min - 1hour (a nurse usually makes an evaluation within 10 minutes at the clinic I visit ) and all I need to do is show my provincial health insurance card which is renewed every five years at the same time as my driving permit. If you go to a hospital emergency it can be longer if it is not a real emergency, I admit. At least we do have some "peace of mind" when we're sick, regardless of status and revenues.

We pay higher taxes but they include a lot of other services (apart medical related services such as medivac from remote regions, which can easily be over +2000km from the nearest centre, sex change surgery and abortion ): university is dirt cheap (an MBA in a worldwide recognized institution costs me $7500), for those who have children in Quebec, daycare is $7/day/child, and there's some more . For the worries it takes away, I don't mind paying higher taxes (One of my uncles - hardly insurable with the private sector as he was over 65 - got sick in the US and got a +50k bill for a few days...that's a lot of years of taxes if you consider only the health care portion we pay here...) Our "good Samaritan" laws might also somewhat help with the bills as the crazy lawsuits amounts in the US must be in for something too. I remember one of my torts teachers saying that "at that price, he would accept to get his four limbs broken, not just one!" ...or that he would jump in the "french fries oil" willingly about an award given for some coffee dropped on someone's lap).

As for illegal aliens... most of the time, transportation companies end up paying the bill due to our Immigration Act (unless illegal aliens come from the US, it requires an aircraft or ship to get to Canada... Don't get me started on this as I used to represent airlines :p Suing foreign states isn't usually an option as they have immunity here. I do understand that the US situation might be different in that regard though (@ Jae: dunno about the US but states can't be held liable for such things here). In any event, we're also only 1/10th of the US population but on a larger territory.

Q

09-16-2009, 09:42 PM

Meh, I really don't know what to think about all of this.

I'll readily acknowledge, however, that the #1 goal for many people in this country (myself included) is to stay healthy so that we don't go bankrupt. I don't think that fining/penalizing people who can't afford or otherwise don't have coverage as the president has threatened to do is the right way to go about it, though.

mimartin

09-16-2009, 10:16 PM

I don't think that fining/penalizing people who can't afford or otherwise don't have coverage as the president has threatened to do is the right way to go about it, though. That is not what the President is suggesting. That is what the talking heads say (lie) about him saying). What the Senate in the case is saying is they will fine someone that can afford it, but choices not to purchase health coverage.

Totenkopf

09-17-2009, 01:43 AM

Interesting, the only statements regarding penalties for people not carrying insurance that I've heard about are that they could be up to $3800/family, not that BO is looking to charge people penalties even if they can't afford private insurance. I always took that whole deal to be aimed at the modern "yuppies" who forgo health insurance to pay for a new BMWer or some such.

Q

09-17-2009, 06:23 AM

I must have heard it wrong, then.

mimartin

09-17-2009, 08:43 AM

I did not hear it wrong when I was listening to Savage, Rush, FoxNews or the local Houston area talking heads.
All those talking heads were the only ones wrong.

JediAthos

09-17-2009, 09:05 AM

Interesting, the only statements regarding penalties for people not carrying insurance that I've heard about are that they could be up to $3800/family, not that BO is looking to charge people penalties even if they can't afford private insurance. I always took that whole deal to be aimed at the modern "yuppies" who forgo health insurance to pay for a new BMWer or some such.

I don't know if it is aimed at anyone specifically, but you are correct. The fines are aimed at people who can afford insurance but simply choose not to carry any. Those who cannot afford insurance premiums would be exempt from any fine.

On another note: the link I posted no longer links to the original article, and I can't seem to find it.

Darth Avlectus

09-19-2009, 01:44 AM

How is the affordability determination going to be made? Income? Property in your name? How much you put into savings? (Raises another question: Could they legally go into your bank account, electronically for whatever they think they need at the moment?)

Totenkopf

09-19-2009, 02:33 AM

Well, I heard it talked about and the figure thrown out was that of ~$40k/yr for an individual and $80k+ for a family of 4. I going to guess that the answer to your last question would ulitimately be yes.

mimartin

09-21-2009, 01:43 PM

Could they legally go into your bank account, electronically for whatever they think they need at the moment?)That would not be a new development, they can already do that.

Totenkopf

10-08-2009, 08:51 PM

Interesting....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7Y0TOBuG4

*keep in mind this was from 2007

mimartin

10-08-2009, 09:57 PM

Edited by the video maker to get an intended reaction. Completely irrelevant to the current debate in it edited form as it is taken out of context.

Totenkopf

10-08-2009, 10:33 PM

Given that he wasn't indicting any particular president (why I mentioned 2007), your criticism is misplaced. Just what context do you believe it to be in originally? Frankly, it's almost prescient in a way. We are effectively broke and this group in govt wants to continue spending money we don't have. So, if you get the public option (which even Barney Frank has openly admitted is the first step to single payer govt healthcare), how does a govt with less and less money seriously expect anyone to take their claims as remotely rational that such a system will be revenue neutral? Don't bother citing the current CBO scoring of what is effectively still a work in progress. We all know how right they were with their original projections for medicare. :rolleyes: (at the govt) Don't know about you, mimartin, but you can't tax your way into prosperity. If you could, California would be a real nirvana. ;)

mimartin

10-09-2009, 12:08 AM

What criticism? I just stated a fact and did not criticize anything, the video is edited and taken out of context to make the editors point. The point that the editor misses is the current system is so messed up that it is destroying this nation and American families to do nothing. At least big drug companies and medical insurance companies are making money, so why change the current system. THREE CHEERS FOR BIG BUSINESS AND TO HELL WITH THE LITTLE GUY. :(

I think the current bill is a joke (as do I think of the current system). I'm actually for Government Health Care, like every other western country has, and they spend a lot less than us.

El Sitherino

10-09-2009, 12:09 AM

I'd like to ask what everyone thinks should be done in effort to effectively reform healthcare. Emphasis on effectively.
What can we do to remove the risk of people losing coverage when faced with pregnancy, accidents, and common health concerns such as infectious disease and cancers?
How should we go about making sure all citizens are healthy and have the ability to regain their optimal health?

mimartin

10-09-2009, 12:16 AM

We don’t want everyone healthy, that would take away money away from the Pharmaceutical Companies.

Totenkopf

10-09-2009, 04:38 AM

What criticism?

That you felt that vid was taken out of context and thus irrelevant. Given the govt's track record with financing programs, I'll try my luck with the private sector. The current system doesn't suck, neither is it perfect. Given how the US govt has handled the BIA, the VA and welfare in general, I'm not nearly as trusting of them as you appear to be.

Ten-96

10-14-2009, 01:47 AM

I have a few questions for those of you who are in support of the Government's take over of the Health Insurance/Care Industry.

1. If this is so important and they have to act right away, why aren't any of the "reforms" going to take place until 2013 (if passed)?

2. Why are the increased costs and taxes going into effect immediately (if passed) for those of us who already pay for health insurance even though the "reform" won't begin until 2013?

3. How can anyone in good conscience agree to impose higher costs per person or family for these proposed "reforms" (if passed)?

That you felt that vid was taken out of context and thus irrelevant. Given the govt's track record with financing programs, I'll try my luck with the private sector. The current system doesn't suck, neither is it perfect. Given how the US govt has handled the BIA, the VA and welfare in general, I'm not nearly as trusting of them as you appear to be.

Don't forget about that wonderfully planned and executed Cash for Clunkers Program. While we're at it, take a look at the U.S.P.S. The Post Office problem alone is enough for many to believe that the Government is incapable of running a business successfully; let alone overseeing Health Insurance for an entire nation.

Edit:
Great idea, but one question: Who would regulate these cross state policies? Right now, the insurance companies are regulated by the state department of insurance. However, which state will have jurisdiction in what you advocating?
Or are you advocating the Federal Government regulate Health Insurance Companies?

Sorry, I just reread the thread and saw these. My answer is that free market solutions will regulate the interstate policy purchases. The more plans that are available for purchase by consumers, the cheaper they become benefiting everyone.

Yes, you can find silly cases to make your point. How about limiting all lawsuits to 5 thousand, 10 thousand or something like that? Just how much is a life worth?

I wasn't talking about negligent homicide, I was referring to non-fatal cases along the lines of the example I gave.

As a friend point out to me I over simplified this:

If someone killed one of your family members would you not want them punished?

Of course I would want the person to suffer the full penalty of the law. I would not however condone monetary legal action against someone who had been convicted of a crime.

Or at the very least, have your family member’s death mean something by being a deterrent to others not to make the same mistake that caused that loved ones death?

Mean something by suing someone for a sum of money? No sum of money can be compared to a life, in my opinion. As I stated above, I was referring to minor cases and not cases involving negligent homicide.

How about limiting all lawsuits to 5 thousand, 10 thousand or something like that? Just how much is a life worth?
If someone killed one of your family members would you not want them punished?

So vengeneance is alright if it's measured in $$?

Don't forget about that wonderfully planned and executed Cash for Clunkers Program. While we're at it, take a look at the U.S.P.S. The Post Office problem alone is enough for many to believe that the Government is incapable of running a business successfully; let alone overseeing Health Insurance for an entire nation.

Main reason I focused on the three that I chose was b/c of their relevance to quality of life. Welfare was/is a trap, Native Americans have suffered greatly under "govt care" and the VA isn't a particularly sterling example of govt care either, esp of people who may deserve it more than the average citizen.

So vengeneance is alright if it's measured in $$? Show me where I said it was, please. I said, I want my loved ones meaningless death to mean something. Be it a huge monetary settlement that would deter others from making the same mistake, revocation of the professional license, which would also deter other from making the same mistake or prison time, is up to the system and not me.

What exactly is a minor case?

Is a doctor making a mistake and cutting off your pinkie a minor case?

What if you are a musician?

Don’t get me wrong I’m tort for reform. I am just not for protecting idiots and I am not for letting people get away with careless preventable mistake by hiding behind tort reform.

Jae Onasi

11-02-2009, 12:45 AM

Don’t get me wrong I’m tort reform. I am just not for protecting idiots and I am not for letting people get away with careless preventable mistake by hiding behind tort reform.
It works both ways. What if the patient is the one being the idiot and not following orders? I live in great fear of being sued for a contact lens-related corneal ulcer or glaucoma going bad and the patient losing sight. The problem is, even if I do everything right, I still might lose ("you didn't refer them fast enough to ophthalmology/the medication you prescribed didn't work right"), even when the patient didn't follow their contact lens wearing schedule correctly, or they didn't change the contact lens solution in their case daily, or they didn't take their eye drops at the appropriate times, they skipped doses, etc. I had a patient who came in to see me for a corneal ulcer and tell me he couldn't afford to replace his contact lens solution daily (here's a hint, dude, you can't afford to wear contacts, then, and should just wear your glasses). He came in 20 minutes late to his follow-up 2 days later with the excuse that he had to program his new cell phone. I document carefully anyway out of habit, but I just about put a transcript of the conversation on the chart because this is the kind of idiot who would sue later.

Even when it's clearly patient-mediated, the jury tends to feel sorry for the person who's lost sight, or lost a limb, or whatever, and awards for the patient anyway. This is on the theory that the insurance company will cover the doctor's losses.

Another issue is that medical insurance companies will sometimes sue the doctor (and anyone remotely related to the patient's problem) on behalf of the patient to try to recoup the medical costs it has to pay out. Let's take my contact-lens patient who loses sight in that eye. The medical insurance company decides to go after me for malpractice, the contact lens and solution manufacturers for product defects, and anyone else it can find remotely associated with the event. My patient may not even want me sued (note to all medpros--patients don't sue the caregivers they like--cultivate that not only because you care about your patients, but to protect yourself as well), but the medical insurance company may go after me anyway.

These are the kinds of things that need to be addressed in tort reform--e.g. awards given because juries develop an emotional attachment to the patient, which may result in too high of an award being given to someone who may not deserve it as much as someone else who doesn't elicit the same level of sympathy, or finding for the patient even when the doctor has done nothing wrong. In addition, limits need to be placed on medical companies seeking to recoup the costs for their patients by suing the doctor, hospital, and anyone else remotely associated with the patient's problem(s).

And yes, insurance companies have determined a cost for a life or a limb--in my hubby's accidental death/dismemberment policy, we would be reimbursed a certain amount if he lost a finger, a hand, a leg, one or both eyes, his life, etc. It doesn't matter what profession he has--if you lose your hands, you're only going to be reimbursed the amount specified in the policy, regardless of if you're a soccer player or a world-renowned concert pianist.

mimartin

11-02-2009, 11:52 AM

What if the patient is the one being the idiot and not following orders? In that case the doctor should not be punished at all.

Although the thought of being sued, seems to have been a deterrent to you not to do anything careless. Has the threat of being sued made you more cautious and sure to explain all the valid information to your patient?

And yes, insurance companies have determined a cost for a life or a limb--in my hubby's accidental death/dismemberment policy, we would be reimbursed a certain amount if he lost a finger, a hand, a leg, one or both eyes, his life, etc. It doesn't matter what profession he has--if you lose your hands, you're only going to be reimbursed the amount specified in the policy, regardless of if you're a soccer player or a world-renowned concert pianist.Yes, a contract between your husband and his insurance company on a disability policy spells that type of thing out. However, that does not validate those same set of reimbursement schedules for someone that is not under that contract. Your husband is free not to take that contract and purchase a different contract, by agreeing to the contract he has accepted how much his sight is worth before the loss. This is very different from a liability claim where the claimant did not have that opportunity to approve the reimbursement schedules before the loss.

Since I sell many different types of disability contracts, I know they can be very different depending on occupation. I would never sell the same policy and the same limits to a surgeon that I would to a ditch digger or I’d be the one needing to file a claim against my E&O coverage.

Jae Onasi

11-08-2009, 01:01 AM

In that case the doctor should not be punished at all.

Although the thought of being sued, seems to have been a deterrent to you not to do anything careless. Has the threat of being sued made you more cautious and sure to explain all the valid information to your patient? I don't know that I would explain valid information any less--I'm an education junkie and feel the need to teach my patients about their conditions and how to best help themselves. I'm not going to their house every four hours to put their drops in for them, so they have to understand why it's important for them to take responsibility for following my instructions. That part wouldn't change even if we had massive tort reform. I fear being the one responsible for a patient losing their sight far more than I fear the subsequent likely litigation. However, the threat of litigation has made me over-refer a lot more patients to ophthalmology than I need to.

I did know a doctor who got sued just for giving basic information about retinal diseases in general to the family of a patient. The family claimed he gave them bad medical advice, even though they weren't his patients. His insurance company wanted to settle the case, but the doctor insisted on fighting it on principle. He eventually won the case, but it was a hassle for him. These are the kinds of ridiculous lawsuits that we need to eliminate with tort reform.

Yes, a contract between your husband and his insurance company on a disability policy spells that type of thing out. However, that does not validate those same set of reimbursement schedules for someone that is not under that contract. Your husband is free not to take that contract and purchase a different contract, by agreeing to the contract he has accepted how much his sight is worth before the loss. This is very different from a liability claim where the claimant did not have that opportunity to approve the reimbursement schedules before the loss.

Since I sell many different types of disability contracts, I know they can be very different depending on occupation. I would never sell the same policy and the same limits to a surgeon that I would to a ditch digger or I’d be the one needing to file a claim against my E&O coverage.Fair enough on that point. :)

Latest update: The House of Representatives has passed landmark legislation on health care reform.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-dc-health-house-final,0,766249.story

Ten-96

11-08-2009, 01:22 AM

Latest update: The House of Representatives has passed landmark legislation on health care reform.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-dc-health-house-final,0,766249.story

Truly a sad day for our beloved republic. I highlighted and bolded the word landmark. There is nothing in this bill that will lower the cost of health insurance for anyone. I, again, ask anyone in support to answer these:

1. If this is so important and they have to act right away, why aren't any of the "reforms" going into effect until 2013?

2. Why are the increased costs and taxes going into effect immediately for those of us who already pay for health insurance even though the "reform" won't begin until 2013?

3. How can anyone in good conscience agree to impose higher costs per person or family for these proposed "reforms" with the unemployment rate above 10%?

4. If the goal is to ensure "everyone", why will there still be millions that will not be covered by this "reform"?

Jae Onasi

11-08-2009, 01:29 AM

Truly a sad day for our beloved republic. I highlighted and bolded the word landmark. There is nothing in this bill that will lower the cost of health insurance for anyone. I, again, ask anyone in support to answer these:

1. If this is so important and they have to act right away, why aren't any of the "reforms" going into effect until 2013?

2. Why are the increased costs and taxes going into effect immediately for those of us who already pay for health insurance even though the "reform" won't begin until 2013?

3. How can anyone in good conscience agree to impose higher costs per person or family for these proposed "reforms" with the unemployment rate above 10%?

4. If the goal is to ensure "everyone", why will there still be millions that will not be covered by this "reform"?

1. It's going to take time to re-tool the insurance industry, and the House doesn't want to seriously annoy the medical community and the insurance lobbyists too much.
2. Because the gov't likes money and is looking at a huge deficit.
3. If you're unemployed, you'll get covered under Medicaid--that's how they can justify it.
4. Because the conservatives wouldn't go for universal health coverage, and the Dems had to compromise to get a bill passed.

Ten-96

11-08-2009, 02:01 AM

1. It's going to take time to re-tool the insurance industry, and the House doesn't want to seriously annoy the medical community and the insurance lobbyists too much.
2. Because the gov't likes money and is looking at a huge deficit.
3. If you're unemployed, you'll get covered under Medicaid--that's how they can justify it.
4. Because the conservatives wouldn't go for universal health coverage, and the Dems had to compromise to get a bill passed.

1. It's going to take 4 years? Congress has already annoyed the AMA with this bill. (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/06/amas-endorsement-house-health-care-sparks-internal-uprising/)

2. We're already in a deficit. This is going to pull us even further down. Those of us whom already pay for health insurance going to be paying more for it. How is that health insurance reform?

3. I don't agree that making those of us who already have insurance pay more for people who do not. There are ways to cover the uninsured without putting an additional burden on taxpayers.

4. As a Conservative, I still by my affirmation that there is nothing in the Constitution that grants Congress the power nor the right to guarantee health insurance for every American citizen. In fact, there is a provision in the Constitution that protects citizens from undo/unwarranted tax burdens. I pray that the Conservatives in Congress contest H.R. 3962 as unconstitutional.

Totenkopf

11-08-2009, 02:11 AM

Well, the big question is what the Senate will do next. All nice and fine for mrs. Pelosi to make her statement, but will Harry get his ducks lined up too? Given that many people are opposed to the govt healthcare solution proposed by the dems, how will this affect the 2010 elections? If it becomes a repeat of 1994, will their opponents manage to roll anything back or scale down the excesses? It's very clear that the dems are marching toward single payer govt healthcare, citizens and finances be damned. Instead of fixing the problem (dealing w/<40 million problems), they seek to remake the system in their own image, so to speak. This has never really been about helping people so much as Congress helping itself to ever larger degrees of control over people. Barney Frank has been quite clear himself on numerous occasions that they seek to increase govt involvement in our lives at every turn and that they want single payer govt healthcare, putting the lie to claims of only providing competition to the private sector.

mimartin

11-08-2009, 11:14 PM

You’re completely right it is about helping people. That is why the Republicans decided to do nothing about our health care problem and the skyrocketing cost when they were in power. No, they only bellowed about 1% of the total health care cost and how to bring that down with tort reform.

I not happy with this plan, because I only see it as a band aid for the real problems, still it is better than anything else that has taken place over the previous 8 years.

3. I don't agree that making those of us who already have insurance pay more for people who do not. There are ways to cover the uninsured without putting an additional burden on taxpayers.

Yea, do what we are doing now! Put the burden on those that pay health insurance premium. Or do your really believe a aspirin cost $5.00? Those that pay health insurance are already paying higher taxes, only now we are paying them to health insurance companies that are pay padded bills by hospitals and doctors that have treated the uninsured.

As someone with an accounting degree and a business owner, I can tell you cost are passed on to the consumer that can pay.

Ten-96

11-09-2009, 01:03 AM

I agree that "most" Republicans wanted to do nothing about the costs associated with health care insurance and care in general. While that may be the case, it still makes no sense to have the government step in to take over the system.

The current bill proposed by House Republicans have introduced an Amendment (http://blog.heritage.org/2009/11/06/health-care-reform-the-house-republican-alternative/) to tackle some of the problem associated with health insurance. While tort reform is among the proposals, it's not the only thing that House Republicans are seeking.

Yea, do what we are doing now! Put the burden on those that pay health insurance premium. Or do your really believe a aspirin cost $5.00? Those that pay health insurance are already paying higher taxes, only now we are paying them to health insurance companies that are pay padded bills by hospitals and doctors that have treated the uninsured.

I don't recall stating that I wanted things to continue as they are currently in any of my replies to this topic. I stated that the bill the democrats are proposing doesn't lower health care insurance costs for anyone, regardless.

You lost me on the $5 aspirin. As far as the costs associated with health insurance, those that are already paying higher taxes will be paying even higher taxes but to the government.

mimartin

11-09-2009, 01:42 AM

So why didn't the Republican tackle this issue when they had control of both the White House and Congress?

Get sick under todays system and you will know all about $5.00 aspirin and $3000.00 one block rides to hospitals.

Simple economics, spreading the cost among the many is cheaper than spreading the cost among the few. If everyone is insured, then padding the insured’s bills will become obsolete thus driving down cost not only of health care, but health insurance.

Totenkopf

11-09-2009, 01:43 AM

......While that may be the case, it still makes no sense to have the government step in to take over the system.

Exactly. The govt is effectively broke, yet Congress overreaches in an effort to further entrench it's control over our daily lives in the name of yet another "crisis". Again, rather than address the legitimate issue of reforms needed (portability, pre-existing conditions...), it has instead opted for transformation of the system. Given its track record, it's a bank busting boondoggle in the making. The CBO can't even really give a fair estimate of its cost b/c the details of the bill will continue to be a work in progress. Given how accurate it's projected costs for Medicare haven't been, I'd say any claim that this bill will end up being revenue neutral is worth less than the paper those promises will be printed on. Govt will not be able to do this on the backs of the rich alone and the "middle class" will suffer ever higher costs and taxes as a result, nevermind intrusions upon our own personal freedoms. Still, it has to pass the Senate......

Ten-96

11-09-2009, 01:59 AM

So why didn't the Republican tackle this issue when they had control of both the White House and Congress?

When the Republicans took over back in 94', Clinton was the President so they never had control of both Congress and the Whitehouse. There were many things they tried to accomplish. They weren't able to accomplish them all. Back then, the issue of health insurance costs weren't the focus of the masses.

Get sick under todays system and you will know all about $5.00 aspirin and $3000.00 one block rides to hospitals.

I am fortunate enough to stay very healthy. However, I have children and know all about hospital bills. I've always been of the mindset to let the insurance pay it's agreed upon portion and I'll pay the rest. I always assumed that was the way to do it.

Simple economics, spreading the cost among the many is cheaper than spreading the cost among the few. If everyone is insured, then padding the insured’s bills will become obsolete thus driving down cost not only of health care, but health insurance.

The few you mention aren't paying anything at all. All that does is raise the price for those already paying. For a solution that's supposed to lower costs, it's going about it the wrong way. The best way to lower health insurance is to eliminate the ban on interstate trade; not to let the government take over. It would work the same as with auto insurance. Right now, you can get online and purchase auto insurance from anywhere in the U.S. You should be able to do the same with health insurance. Insurers would be forced to lower their premiums to compete nationally. They would also be forced to reform the way they deal with hospitals, drug companies, pharmacies, etc... in order to stay viable.

mimartin

11-09-2009, 02:14 AM

Wow, I did not know that the Democrats controlled the congress the entire time Bush was President. I guess they need to fix the education system next, silly me.

The rest of this I've already replied to in this thread. Under your plan, just who would be telling state what to do? And isn't that unconstitutional? Oh, wait that right, when the republicans pass a bill it is automatically constitutional like the Patriot Act.
Right now, you can get online and purchase auto insurance from anywhere in the U.S. No you can not. You can only purchase insurance from state approve insured. The insurance company has to be permitted in your state by the your state department of insurance. Yes, you can buy it online, but you are purchasing the coverage from insured that has been approved to sell within your state. The policy has also been approved by your state and the people servicing the policy have been licensed by your state. BTW I am a licensed insurance agent.

Ten-96

11-09-2009, 02:44 AM

Wow, I did not know that the Democrats controlled the congress the entire time Bush was President. I guess they need to fix the education system next, silly me.

When Bush 43 took office in 2000, the Senate was controlled by Republicans. However, not all of those Republicans were Conservative. The House of Representatives was much the same. Republican controlled with many moderates and liberals mixed in.

The rest of this I've already replied to in this thread. Under your plan, just who would be telling state what to do? And isn't that unconstitutional? Oh, wait that right, when the republicans pass a bill it is automatically constitutional like the Patriot Act.

The 10th Amendment would leave the individual states to decide what's best for their state. The Patriot Act was signed into law in 2001 to fight an enemy using newer technologies. It was resigned into law in 2006 with democratic support. If it was Unconstitutional, it would have been challenged and overturned by the Supreme Court.

No you can not. You can only purchase insurance from state approve insured. The insurance company has to be permitted in your state by the your state department of insurance. Yes, you can buy it online, but you are purchasing the coverage from insured that has been approved to sell within your state. The policy has also been approved by your state and the people servicing the policy have been licensed by your state. BTW I am a licensed insurance agent.

Okay. By allowing insurance companies to sell insurance in your state, you benefit from the savings since you can purchase different policies from different companies allowed to operate in your state. You could apply the same principle to health insurance. You could even have them offer different types of coverage instead of a blanket policy. It would still be far better than letting the government take over the health insurance industry.

mimartin

11-09-2009, 03:02 AM

The same principles that apply to auto insurance apply to health insurance today. The problem with what you are advocating is states control and regulate what is sold in their state. Blue Cross for example sells in many states, but the product is different from state to state base on that states regulations.

And yes, it works the exact same way for the property and causality markets.

State Farm, All State, Farmers, Progressive… sell in many states, but they are regulated in each state they operate in by that individual state. I’m in Texas, I can buy auto insurance from State Farm, but I can only purchase a Texas Personal Auto policy from State Farm. I can not purchase a Oklahoma Personal Auto Policy and renew my license, purchase tags or get my car inspection. I am also subject to a traffic violation if caught without the proper coverage as a Texas resident.

Oh, just because a Conservative court refuses to hear an argument, does not mean it is Constitutional.

Totenkopf

11-09-2009, 09:38 AM

Govt is the problem. Whether it's the federal govt overreaching or state govts allowing defacto monopolies in insurance (energy, telecom,....).

mimartin

11-09-2009, 11:31 AM

State Department of Insurance regulations protect consumers and prevent fly by night insurance companies from coming in writing business and then leaving once their coffers are filled and the claims start rolling in.

From what I’ve seen the Texas Department of Insurance is not limiting trade, but they are making sure that insurance companies honor their obligations. After all, the consumer is only buying a few pieces of paper with a promise on it. Hopefully, they will never need to have that promise honored. However, I actually believe it is rather important that the insurance company be financial strong enough to honor their commitments. Otherwise you are only paying for a few sheets of paper with writing on them. Don’t know about you but I can purchase nice clean paper from Office Max a lot cheaper.

Totenkopf

11-09-2009, 01:50 PM

I agree that companies should be solvent. But given that the US govt is clearly insolvent and borrowing heavily (possibly on the verge of hyperinflating currency), how do you square solvency and healthy bottom lines with "public option" or even single payer govt healthcare? I guess Washington could hand out IOUs (like CA)....

mimartin

11-09-2009, 02:40 PM

Well considering that a large part of the current increase in the debt comes from bailing out an industry deregulated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I’m not in favor of deregulating the health insurance industry. Just call me… I don’t know…Conservative perhaps.

Sorry Jae, missed your reply:

These are the kinds of ridiculous lawsuits that we need to eliminate with tort reform.
While I agree this is the type of case that needs to be eliminated, I disagree on the solution. I don’t what to punish those with a legitimate claim, because of a few bad apples. My solution is far simpler although it could never be implemented due to the number of lawyers in positions of power. Instead of limiting access to legal recourse, my suggest is if the jury finds the case frivolous the entire court cost is billed to the attorney that brought the case in front of the court. That attorney would not be allowed to bill their client the cost either. I don’t know, but I’m pretty sure that would end a few of these sue and hope to settle cases.

Totenkopf

11-09-2009, 06:06 PM

Well considering that a large part of the current increase in the debt comes from bailing out an industry deregulated by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. I’m not in favor of deregulating the health insurance industry. Just call me… I don’t know…Conservative perhaps.

Not Conservative enough to oppose a govt takeover of the healthcare industry apparently. To regulate is one thing, to run it something else entirely. ;)

mimartin

11-09-2009, 08:19 PM

<snipped> I find it confusing that Conservatives seem not to understand that universal health care benefits people and business and should be at the forefront of their agenda. Instead they listen to talking heads such as O’Reilly, Rush, Hannity and Savage tell them this is a communist plot to take over America. These same talking heads don’t even know the difference between Communist, Socialist, and Fascist and yet people are listening to them.

Darth Avlectus

11-09-2009, 09:24 PM

I don't know about how equipment suppliers factor into all of this, but I do think that if it is cheaper to buy new equipment than to try to refurbish and repair old stuff, we ought to go that route. As for the disposed of equipment...hey, I'm an electronics experimenter so I can (SAFELY) find new applications of discarded defibrillators and such. (Hell, does anyone know of any hospitals in CA looking to just get rid of medical lasers? They'd make perfect pieces of equipment for a university! Even those old 600lb beasts!) Back on subject: if it costs $7200USD for repairing an oxygen machine that was previously used, and there are only ~$3000 USD to MAKE...why the hell do coverage companies insist upon keeping their own expenses up?

"No E waste" will gladly accept discarded appliances as well as electronics hobbyists.

I'm not just pulling this out my @$$: I actually know the owner of an equipment manufacturer/contractor company.
Also, meaningful reform to me would be a "loser pays" sort of deal to discourage frivolous lawsuits--and it wouldn't need to be all across the board, just for a suing party that was found to be frivolously bringing suit. Am I missing something here? I looked at this particular business owner's bill for one year in legal defenses: $2,788,304.29! If we got rid of expenses from frivolous lawsuits, I'm sure that could make some difference to the costs in the medical industry.

Jae Onasi

11-09-2009, 09:57 PM

Durable medical equipment is used until it no longer functions. It's a lot cheaper to repair lasers, sterilizers, and such than it is to replace them. There is a point where it becomes more cost effective to replace an old piece of equipment with a newer, more energy-efficient model, but most of the time the equipment is fixed until it can't be fixed anymore, then it's sometimes traded in to the manufacturer for salvageable parts.

Totenkopf

11-09-2009, 10:04 PM

I find it confusing that Conservatives seem not to understand that universal health care benefits people and business and should be at the forefront of their agenda.

I think you equate opposition to govt run healthcare with opposition to changing the staus quo. It's not oppostion to changing the system to be more efficient and provide better coverage, but opposition to yet another attempt by bureaucrats to take control over people's lives via artiface. The system is not irredeemably broken, it merely needs to be made better. Giving it over to the govt is NOT the way to do it. Doesn't matter whether the proponents are republican, liberals, progressives or communists...it all leads to yet another layer of control over people's lives that's unwelcome. Reform, not transform. Frankly, the timeline is artifical and these people seem to be doing their damndest to leave us in the dark about the details. Just more of the same old-same old.

Det. Bart Lasiter

11-09-2009, 10:34 PM

Not Conservative enough to oppose a govt takeover of the healthcare industry apparently. To regulate is one thing, to run it something else entirely. ;)No amount of regulation will ensure that everyone is covered by some form of health insurance, that health insurance companies will pay claims instead of ducking around them like they do now, or that companies won't simply start gouging people with pre-existing conditions, like being raped (http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/St-Pete-woman-I-was-denied-health-coverage-after/U0Lmn2gsmEi9vz4azYknsA.cspx), if they are forced to accept them.

Totenkopf

11-09-2009, 11:44 PM

No amount of regulation will ensure that everyone is covered by some form of health insurance, that health insurance companies will pay claims instead of ducking around them like they do now, or that companies won't simply start gouging people with pre-existing conditions, like being raped (http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local/story/St-Pete-woman-I-was-denied-health-coverage-after/U0Lmn2gsmEi9vz4azYknsA.cspx), if they are forced to accept them.

Even with this so-called healthcare reform, at least 1/2 the uncovered aren't covered by the plan. Even after these reprobates finish raping our wallets and livlihoods to grow their power, we'll likely be no better off.

Det. Bart Lasiter

11-09-2009, 11:51 PM

Well to hell with the whole thing, if this ****ty bill that's been stripped and watered down to get through the Senate can only half the number of uninsured people, why bother?

Darth Avlectus

11-10-2009, 12:04 AM

Durable medical equipment is used until it no longer functions. It's a lot cheaper to repair lasers, sterilizers, and such than it is to replace them. There is a point where it becomes more cost effective to replace an old piece of equipment with a newer, more energy-efficient model, but most of the time the equipment is fixed until it can't be fixed anymore, then it's sometimes traded in to the manufacturer for salvageable parts.

WRT lasers, yes. Oxygen machines and other stuff...not so much. But I essentially see what you're saying; all I was getting at was that someone ought to look into these costs (with a fine tooth comb) on behalf of customers/patients. Someone ideally arbitrary/neutral to both corporate interests and government.

Tommycat

11-12-2009, 05:17 AM

I don't think they took enough time evaluating the problems with health care. I mean its like a car. They heard a noise and decided to replace the whole drivetrain. They MIGHT fix it that way, but they are overspending and they aren't even sure where the real problem is.

El Sitherino

11-16-2009, 05:10 AM

4. As a Conservative, I still by my affirmation that there is nothing in the Constitution that grants Congress the power nor the right to guarantee health insurance for every American citizen.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

As an effete European without a written constitution, I'd like to ask why it's relevant as to whether something is provided for in your constitution or not?

No, really; why is a 200-year-old legal document put on a pedestal? I understand its importance in legal terms, but why do you seem to treat it like the fifth gospel?

And given the number of amendments to your constitution, and the very existence thereof, why is it relevant that something is not in the text? The Magna Carta makes no provision for anti-terrorism laws. Peculiarly enough, it wasn't a pressing issue in 1215. I genuinely don't understand how "it's not provided for in the Constitution" is an argument. Perhaps I'm missing something about your legal system.

mimartin

11-16-2009, 10:43 AM

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. Since it is extremely difficult to actual admen the Constitution, having a law or bill stuck down as unconstitutional is pretty much a death sentence for that particular law or bill. For a document of this age and importance to only be amended 27 times either speaks to it perfection or the difficulty in the process to change it. Personally I do believe it speaks more to the difficulty designed into amending the document. Thankfully so, or there would have been many more boondoggles, such as the 18th amendment.

However, in practicality (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/practicality) saying something is unconstitutional has no real merit. Only the Supreme Court can decide what is truly unconstitutional and then that too can be overturned with an amendment or by a similar case going before the Supreme Court and that court making a different decision.

@below, this time my spelling was correct. Added a link for those that need it.:xp: When I am responding to DI, I feel inclined to step my game up.

Define the difference between "promote" and "provide for" and you have your answer. Frankly, you appear to believe the govt should provide for rather than merely promote on "general welfare" (ie healthcare, education, social services, etc...). Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line on what the govt is supposed to provide you with? A mansion? A free "cadillac health plan"? Free college tuition w/no strings attached? How much are you willing to give the govt in return?

Since it is extremely difficult to actual admen the Constitution, having a law or bill stuck down as unconstitutional is pretty much a death sentence for that particular law or bill. For a document of this age and importance to only be amended 27 times either speaks to it perfection or the difficulty in the process to change it. Personally I do believe it speaks more to the difficulty designed into amending the document. Thankfully so, or there would have been many more boondoggles, such as the 18th amendment.

However, in practicality saying something is unconstitutional has no real merit. Only the Supreme Court can decide what is truly unconstitutional and then that too can be overturned with an amendment or by a similar case going before the Supreme Court and that court making a different decision.

Practically speaking (;) ), I concur.

Jae Onasi

11-16-2009, 04:44 PM

Enough of the BS calling out people on grammar and spelling errors, please. It's so petty, and I'm starting to view that as a snarky comment. This isn't freaking English class, for heaven's sake. If the error has a dramatic effect on the meaning of a post, simply and politely ask the writer to clarify instead. Otherwise, just ignore the minor errors.

I agree with Sithy on the Constitutional issue--"promote the general welfare" seems to me like it could easily be used as reasoning for national health care. Curbing the exploding costs of health care will help not only the national economy but each individual, not to mention that keeping our population more healthy is a benefit to our country as a whole.

El Sitherino

11-16-2009, 05:16 PM

Define the difference between "promote" and "provide for" and you have your answer. Frankly, you appear to believe the govt should provide for rather than merely promote on "general welfare" (ie healthcare, education, social services, etc...). Where, if anywhere, do you draw the line on what the govt is supposed to provide you with? A mansion? A free "cadillac health plan"? Free college tuition w/no strings attached? How much are you willing to give the govt in return?

This isn't really an argument and contains nothing with reason or logic. Clearly you're grasping for straws to argue.

Totenkopf

11-16-2009, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Preamble of the United States Constitution
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is nothing clear at all about your contention, unless you're in the habit of making words mean whatever you want them too. Not remotely logical on your part. It's in no way clear in the context of the language that the US govt is supposed to become increasing involved in people's lives. Very Obama like.....the argument there is no clause clearly defining what the govt SHOULD do for everyone. Actually, based on many of your past comments, it's fairly spot on as to how you've represented yourself. So, define the difference between "provide for" and "promote". I'd say it's pretty clear that you tend to conflate the two, even though they aren't the same.

This isn't really an argument and contains nothing with reason or logic. Clearly you're grasping for straws to argue.

*meow* a lot, do you?

Ten-96

11-17-2009, 02:10 AM

I knew that the "general welfare" argument would come up sooner or later in this thread. General Welfare is listed only twice in the Constitution. It' mentioned in the preamble but notice that there is nothing specific outlined in the preamble. The next time "general welfare" is mentioned is here:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Notice it says general welfare of the United States. It means the general welfare of the country itself; not each of it's citizens. Hence the reason it's mentioned with provide for the common defense. Does that mean the common defense of each and every citizen? I'm sure it means the common defense of the country. Based on that, I assumed that providing for the general welfare of the United States doesn't mean providing heath insurance to each and every citizen.

The Constitution wasn't written to tell the government what it could do. It was written to limit the powers of the government over the citizens of the United States. I see a lot written about lowering the cost of health insurance in this thread. How exactly does that happen with these bills when there are numerous taxes, fines and fees (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/10/paying_for_pelo.html) associated? Lastly, if this reform is so desperately needed and things will improve; why do the democrats refuse to allow an amendment that mandates that all members of Congress, The Supreme Court, the President and Vice President to be enrolled in it first? If this is such an important piece of legislation, you can keep your doctor, etc...; why don't the members of Congress want to be subject to their own decisions?

El Sitherino

11-17-2009, 03:09 AM

This is nothing clear at all about your contention, unless you're in the habit of making words mean whatever you want them too.
You seem to be the one with this habit, there's nothing unclear about the preamble.
It's in no way clear in the context of the language that the US govt is supposed to become increasing involved in people's lives.

You have yet to provide evidence that anything in health care reform or a public option will be placing the government within the lives of private citizens. In fact most arguments are complaints that it infringes on private insurance, so you're going to have to first decide amongst your many arguments which one you believe.

Very Obama like.....the argument there is no clause clearly defining what the govt SHOULD do for everyone.

I'm pretty sure it states that we the people of the United States must do what is required to ensure the benefit of our posterity, part of that includes healthcare.
Actually, based on many of your past comments, it's fairly spot on as to how you've represented yourself. So, define the difference between "provide for" and "promote". I'd say it's pretty clear that you tend to conflate the two, even though they aren't the same.

I don't think I ever tried to make any such argument, as well you seemed to pull your complaints about my post out of your ass as I never mentioned anything about providing people with a mansion. In fact I don't recall ever saying we need to just give things away, considering I believe in taxes and we've actually had many disagreements about that topic in which you declared your dislike of paying taxes.

*meow* a lot, do you?
Cute, so I'm a whiner and you're an underdog e-hero?

I knew that the "general welfare" argument would come up sooner or later in this thread. General Welfare is listed only twice in the Constitution. It' mentioned in the preamble but notice that there is nothing specific outlined in the preamble. The next time "general welfare" is mentioned is here:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States

Notice it says general welfare of the United States. It means the general welfare of the country itself; not each of it's citizens.

The citizens are the country, as without the citizenry there is no people of the United States to effectively dictate the government power. We cannot have a democratic republic without people to vote for their representation. Clearly you need to return to your high school government class. Not to mention when it mentions the posterity, it implies the people, of course you and totenkopf will argue this as you do not find it compatible with your argument to appropriately read the constitution as it was written.

The Constitution wasn't written to tell the government what it could do. It was written to limit the powers of the government over the citizens of the United States.

Wrong, it was written to address the glaring mistakes of the Articles of Confederation which essentially left all power to the states and did not in any way ensure a solid union. The constitution was created to unite the states under a federal law system that made it so the bottom line standards are set for all states and it left further detailing of these standards up to the states to further enforce the idea of these standards or allow them to simply meet the bottom line.

I see a lot written about lowering the cost of health insurance in this thread. How exactly does that happen with these bills when there are numerous taxes, fines and fees (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/10/paying_for_pelo.html) associated?

The taxes will lower as time goes on, however you must pay attention to the fact that many of these additional fees and bull**** were made as concessions to the conservatives (both blue and red) so that a pass could be made. I personally dislike the new bill and find it to be like repairing a bad plumbing system with budget pipes instead of spending the good load of money on quality long-term pipes. Which is what I honestly like to compare this issue to, as it seems people don't want to spend the good money for the good pipes, they want to spend as little as possible to simply hide the problem from sight. Like when a fat lady wears spanx instead of actually losing weight.

Lastly, if this reform is so desperately needed and things will improve; why do the democrats refuse to allow an amendment that mandates that all members of Congress, The Supreme Court, the President and Vice President to be enrolled in it first? If this is such an important piece of legislation, you can keep your doctor, etc...; why don't the members of Congress want to be subject to their own decisions?

Technically they already get the healthcare that is trying to be delivered to the uncovered, it would be redundant. As well, why not just put them on the medicare plan if that's where we're all going? The answers to these questions are found in the conflict placed forward by conservatives, though to be honest about that they aren't really conservatives if they are opposed to the standards being proposed. This whole thing started out as a rather simple argument, but thanks to all the rhetoric on all sides this whole thing has become a confusing mess and it only makes sense that the largely ignorant masses will hide behind the misinformation of people like Bill O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck, and Limbaugh. And in counter to these people we have other jackasses on networks like MSNBC and CNN trying to make spitefully sarcastic jokes about idiotic ideas by then only stirring flames.

Anyway, the burden of proof is upon you gentlemen as you have yet to a) provide a better idea or b) explain with facts why a public option will not help the union, either it's citizens or it's establishment.

Ten-96

11-17-2009, 05:47 AM

Also in Article 1 Section 8: To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

I take that to mean that our government can borrow money for the government with the expressed purposed and obligation to repay. I always assumed that United States in this case meant the government and not the citizens of the United States. The preamble also mentions "securing the blessings of liberty." This bill forces, by threat of fines and imprisonment, that everyone must purchase health insurance. How is that securing our liberties?

I guess I should go back to my "high school government class" as you suggest. I was under the impression that Articles 1, 2 and 3 defined the powers, scope and terms of all three branches of our government.

The taxes, fines and fees were not made as a concession to the conservatives. (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29555.html) All of the taxes, fines and fees were placed there by the liberals who wrote the bill. Conservatives were left out of the process for HR 3962. Congressional Republicans offered this Alternative (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124277551107536875.html).

Congressional health care benefits are in no way similar to the plan outlined as the "public option." Congress' health care plan is run by a very small bureaucracy that, unlike Medicare's, does not try to set prices for doctors and hospitals.

Helping the union? Imposing fines and imprisonment for compliance is helping people? The non-partisan CBO scored HR 3962 at a cost of $1.2 trillion. You asked if Conservatives had a better idea. I posted in the link above. I don't believe that health insurance is a right. We already have Medicaid, which could be expanded to cover minors.

Totenkopf

11-17-2009, 05:59 AM

Anyway, the burden of proof is upon you gentlemen as you have yet to a) provide a better idea or b) explain with facts why a public option will not help the union, either it's citizens or it's establishment.

Actually, you've got it backward. You have to prove it will.......and you haven't. The burden is not upon us. However, I'd also note that beyond you're general unwillingness to consider arguments you don't like, there have been a number of suggestions laced throughout the thread. Go back and read them if you really want to know. Frankly, what is unreasonable is your contention that govt can (and should) do it b/c IF people would just be better it'd be doable. We've seen far too many examples of how govt can't do things properly to just go.....oh, well, maybe we should give 'em one more chance.

mimartin

11-17-2009, 12:53 PM

Friendly reminder:

Either debate health care reform in this thread or don’t debate health care reform. If you want to debate burden of proof, then take it to another thread.

Also a reminder, all forum and Kavar rules apply to this thread.
5. Repeatedly posting the same thing: This refers specifically to repeating the same point over and over in a way that becomes irritating, without an attempt to clarify a point or to contribute to the conversation. This should not be construed to mean that you are required to answer someone else's questions. If it's the same argument and doesn't contribute to the discussion, the post may be edited or deleted, and the poster may receive an infraction.

Jae Onasi

11-20-2009, 05:52 PM

Notice it says general welfare of the United States.
Out-of-control health care costs are affecting the economy of the US in an unprecedented fashion, and the costs are increasing far out of proportion with inflation. While we will pay more in taxes, we will as average citizens pay less in the taxes with comprehensive reform than we would pay as an average private citizen for our own insurance and the extra costs passed on to all of us by the uninsured not paying their bills. I would say that reining in the exploding health care costs and the negative impact not only on the average citizen, but the economy as a whole, counts as promoting the 'general welfare of the US'.

Ten-96

11-22-2009, 12:38 AM

Out-of-control health care costs are affecting the economy of the US in an unprecedented fashion, and the costs are increasing far out of proportion with inflation. While we will pay more in taxes, we will as average citizens pay less in the taxes with comprehensive reform than we would pay as an average private citizen for our own insurance and the extra costs passed on to all of us by the uninsured not paying their bills. I would say that reining in the exploding health care costs and the negative impact not only on the average citizen, but the economy as a whole, counts as promoting the 'general welfare of the US'.

I disagree, Jae. I just don't understand how imposing new and higher taxes on our health insurance is going to lower the cost of health insurance. Kaiser Permanente has a calculator on their website that predicts the costs associated with this "reform" as it pertains to families. If this bill becomes law, my wife and I will be paying an additional $15,000 per year in taxes. That doesn't help us - it hurts us.

While there is a problem with those who are uninsured, the solution isn't to make those of us who are insured pay more. I've given the reasons before and the things that really would lower the costs of health insurance. Government intervention is only going the make the problem worse, in my opinion.

With a current fiscal deficit year of over $1.4 Trillion, Congress and the President need to get a handle on their spending. As of this post, every man, woman and child in the U.S. is in debt to the amount of just under $39,000. They are spending us into an even worse financial crisis yet people are focusing on health insurance costs. This "reform" gives the government the power to force citizens to purchase health insurance. If you don't buy health insurance, you will be fined and may go to jail.

Web Rider

11-22-2009, 12:42 AM

I disagree, Jae. I just don't understand how imposing new and higher taxes on our health insurance is going to lower the cost of health insurance. Kaiser Permanente has a calculator on their website that predicts the costs associated with this "reform" as it pertains to families. If this bill becomes law, my wife and I will be paying an additional $15,000 per year in taxes. That doesn't help us - it hurts us.

I suppose this should be obvious, but Kaiser is a private healthcare corporation. National healthcare cuts into their bottom line, so the idea that they are going to tell you ANYTHING besides: "Don't do it, it'll cost you more!" is pretty laughable. Their job is not to heal people, not to care for the sick, but to make money, and they will do whatever it takes to do so.

Totenkopf

11-22-2009, 01:45 AM

I suppose this should be obvious, but Kaiser is a private healthcare corporation. National healthcare cuts into their bottom line, so the idea that they are going to tell you ANYTHING besides: "Don't do it, it'll cost you more!" is pretty laughable. Their job is not to heal people, not to care for the sick, but to make money, and they will do whatever it takes to do so.

Versus Congress with its insatiable appetite for greater control of our money and lives? :rolleyes:

Ten-96

11-22-2009, 01:57 AM

I suppose this should be obvious, but Kaiser is a private healthcare corporation. National healthcare cuts into their bottom line, so the idea that they are going to tell you ANYTHING besides: "Don't do it, it'll cost you more!" is pretty laughable. Their job is not to heal people, not to care for the sick, but to make money, and they will do whatever it takes to do so.

Be that as it may, it was one tool we used when we looked at this "reform" offered by Congress. We also did our own research and calculations based on our income, the type of health insurance we carry and the number of members in our family. This bill is going to cost us more; regardless of which company says it.

Web Rider

11-22-2009, 03:58 AM

Versus Congress with its insatiable appetite for greater control of our money and lives? :rolleyes:

Government's want to control you, corporations want to control you. Everyone with power in the history of forever has demanded some level of control, generally, in greater amounts the longer they held on to it. The fact that it is Congress and Kaiser fighting over control of your life still means that you're not the one in charge. But hey, you gotta give it to the Prussians, they figured out that if you make people pay for what their government is doing, they'll start caring about what the government is doing. When was the last time this many people weighed in on well, anything?

For the record, I do oppose this current version of the national healthcare bill.

Totenkopf

11-22-2009, 11:47 AM

Government's want to control you, corporations want to control you. Everyone with power in the history of forever has demanded some level of control, generally, in greater amounts the longer they held on to it. The fact that it is Congress and Kaiser fighting over control of your life still means that you're not the one in charge. But hey, you gotta give it to the Prussians, they figured out that if you make people pay for what their government is doing, they'll start caring about what the government is doing. When was the last time this many people weighed in on well, anything?

For the record, I do oppose this current version of the national healthcare bill.

You're correct that corporations want to make themselves indespensable to the public, it's their fiduciary responsibility to their stockholders to get as profitable as possible. And, when things operate correctly, the govt is supposed to keep them in check. What we have instead is a form of crony capitalism where certain companies/entities (be they "evil" corps or equally "evil" groups....like big labor, etc..) buy their politicians of choice and enshrine their advantages over the public through govt policies and laws. Single payer (which is what the "govt option" is the precursor for) is bad b/c it puts the fox in charge of the henhouse. You can turn to the govt, in theory at least, when companies try to screw you. Who do you turn to when the govt does it? You won't always be able to vote them out...just look at incumbency rates in this country regardless of public opinion polls about their popularity and performance.

Web Rider

11-22-2009, 11:59 AM

Who do you turn to when the govt does it? You won't always be able to vote them out...just look at incumbency rates in this country regardless of public opinion polls about their popularity and performance.

You're not always supposed to be able to vote them out. Just because some person doesn't like a certain politician, doesn't mean they gain some magical right to vote them out. All they get is one vote, like everyone else, and the right to try to convince people to agree with them.

Popularity rates are, IMO, a bad thing to judge by. We elect politicians who we agree with, not ones who do what they're told, and even if that was the case, we only need a bare minimum of 51% to get them in office.

Totenkopf

11-22-2009, 07:24 PM

Wasn't speaking of the singular you. The point still stands. What does a population do when its reps tune them out? Violent revolution? Face it, the reasons most people get reelected are b/c it's almost always a case of "my guy is ok......it's the rest that suck" and $$. Since polling is one of the most effective ways for politicians to get feedback on their jobs, it's a bellweather. It's one thing if 49-51% of the people favor or oppose something. Something else when 2/3+ say "not so fast there, bub" and the pols tell you to take a flying leap.

machievelli

11-23-2009, 08:55 PM

Using Europe as a meter is dead wrong if you look at when the plans went into effect. Every European medical plan began right at the end of WWII, when the governments were bankrupt. They survived by making the middle class pay the lion share of the taxes necessary to support it, and allowed anyone who wished to bow out, then allowed private practice doctors to charge what they wanted.

On the 'public' side, doctors could schedule you for say a pair of glasses, and give you a date maybe a year in the future. It is great for emergencies, because no one whines about your insurance card, but a lot of doctors from Europe relocated here because they could make more money.

And do you think any politician is going to win against the insurance companies, a group that has entire law firms on retainer? The Auto insurance bill (119) passed 20 odd years ago in California is still tied up in court because it would cut their profits by 50% or more.

Remember Gerald Ford 'I don't think the government could brew beer for less than $50 a six pack

Det. Bart Lasiter

11-23-2009, 10:51 PM

yeah but they have to factor in the costs of maintaining puppet governments or funding coups or paying off warlords into their brewing costs

Ten-96

11-24-2009, 08:39 AM

yeah but they have to factor in the costs of maintaining puppet governments or funding coups or paying off warlords into their brewing costs

Government Beer?

(Shudders frenetically)

Bimmerman

11-25-2009, 12:07 AM

Government Beer?

(Shudders frenetically)

Coors and Budweiser are already horrid enough!

As for health care....there is a massive misconception between health insurance reform and health care reform. What is being reformed is the insurance industry; health care itself is not changing at all. To be effective, neither can change without the other, so this and all current bills are total crap.

Tommycat

12-25-2009, 08:09 AM

Ugh.... Soo they passed it through the senate. 60-39. Not a single Republican voted for it. And certain senators voted for it only if their state was excluded.

What irritates me is that we are now required to have insurance. If we don't we face fines and even jail time. That's rediculous. Never before have we been forced to buy a product as a condition of living in the US. It's not like car insurance. If you don't want to pay car insurance you have the choice. You can give up the privelage of driving. What do you do if you don't want to pay for health insurance? Not live?

Don't get me wrong, SOME things in the bill are a good thing. The oft overused "pre-existing condition" is now no longer grounds to refuse payment. But on the whole the bill is such crap.

mimartin

12-25-2009, 10:00 AM

Try living in Texas without access to a motor vehicle then tell me that auto/motorcycle insurance is not mandatory. :rolleyes:

What is ridiculous is the current system where the uninsured get medical care free, while those that are insured and/or tax payers foot the bill.

Web Rider

12-25-2009, 12:24 PM

What irritates me is that we are now required to have insurance. If we don't we face fines and even jail time. That's rediculous. Never before have we been forced to buy a product as a condition of living in the US. It's not like car insurance. If you don't want to pay car insurance you have the choice. You can give up the privelage of driving. What do you do if you don't want to pay for health insurance? Not live?.

Most states require home insurance to own a home, some require rental insurance to rent, others require car insurance to drive(not that everyone does, but still). Yes I think it's a fat load that you HAVE to buy it now, or at least be covered by it, ie: I can get it through my mom and that counts. Still it's better than the payers covering the unpaying.

Ping

12-25-2009, 01:37 PM

I can honestly say I've gotten to the point where I don't really care what's in the bill as long as it reforms something. The U.S. is one of the most developed nations out there, yet it doesn't have a proper healthcare system. Therefore, reforms should be made.

Totenkopf

12-25-2009, 01:39 PM

The only people that are going to get forced to pay for it are those that can afford it now and choose not too. You'll still have indigent people after this bill passes that will have to be payed for by the rest of us. On top of which, there's supposedly still about 12-20 million people that the legislation was supposedly originally intended to cover (if you believe anything anyone is DC actually says)that still aren't going to be covered and will thus be picked up by the rest of us. This bill is a load that has more to do with the lib-dems and progressives being able to say that after almost 100 +/- years they've finally managed to foist some kind of public payer system on the country at large. On top of which, it will still be cheaper to pay the fine than actually buy the insurance. How much you wanna bet a lot of people will go that route....

@Ping--reform or transform?

mimartin

12-25-2009, 03:04 PM

The only people that are going to get forced to pay for it are those that can afford it now and choose not too. That is the entire point. :rolleyes:

Yes, people still will not be covered, but who is to blame for that? Perhaps if we would have gone with Universal Health Care like every other modern nation everyone would be covered. Instead the conservatives tear all reform apart and then grip that it does not cover everyone.

Web Rider, I do not have to buy renters insurance, I can live under a bridge, it is my choice to purchase renters insurance or auto insurance because I can walk and live on the street otherwise. Next thing the government is going to tell me that I have to wear a helmet riding a motorcycle or that I cannot drink and drive. Oh wait. :xp:

Ping

12-25-2009, 04:52 PM

@Ping--reform or transform?
Either/Or is fine with me, as long as healthcare is on par with other developed countries.

Darth InSidious

12-25-2009, 05:52 PM

Next thing the government is going to tell me that I have to wear a helmet riding a motorcycle or that I cannot drink and try. Oh wait. :xp:

How dare this communist government of yours obstruct my God-given right to shoot you in the face. :mad:

Tommycat

12-25-2009, 09:12 PM

Try living in Texas without access to a motor vehicle then tell me that auto/motorcycle insurance is not mandatory. :rolleyes:

What is ridiculous is the current system where the uninsured get medical care free, while those that are insured and/or tax payers foot the bill.

Um, I grew up in Texas. San Antonio to be exact. I remember taking the Via bus to and from work. Plus you have carpools, dial a ride etc.

And we'll still be footing the bill. plus the bill for the new agency set up to administer this debacle.

Also, as for renters insurance, it's all handled by each state. NOWHERE in the Constitution is this kind of power ennumerated to the federal government.

@totenkopf: You may have missed the part where the fine is 750 OR 2% of your annual income whichever is more.

mimartin

12-25-2009, 09:29 PM

Um, I grew up in Texas. San Antonio to be exact. I remember taking the Via bus to and from work. Plus you have carpools, dial a ride etc. We have no buses where I live, neither do we have taxis. And would carpools still require insurance? As an insurance agent I will answer that question....yes. So do cabs and buses for that matter, just the cost is built into the fair, so the citizens that use those services are still paying for the required insurance coverage. Only way around it is to walk or ride a bicycle, any other means will require paying for the coverage or breaking the law.

Tommycat

12-25-2009, 09:44 PM

We have no buses where I live, neither do we have taxis. And would carpool still require insurance? As an insurance agent I will answer that question....yes. So do cabs and buses for that matter, just the cost is built into the fair, so the citizens that use those services are still paying for the required insurance coverage. Only way around it is to walk or ride a bicycle, any other means will require paying for the coverage or breaking the law.

You even said it, there IS still a way around the required insurance. Don't get me wrong, I lived in a VERY rural area for a good bit of time. Even lived in a few areas it was more likely to see a horse than a car(Parker Colorado when I was a kid). I also remember walking a whole lot more. Heck I was used to my driveway being a half mile long when I lived in CO. And I walked it every day to catch the bus to school.

As to the bus and carpool. Sure the owners of those have to have insurance. HOWEVER the individual doesn't have to pay it just to exist. Just to somehow LIVE.

And I've never lived in any place where the government required insurance to rent. I have rented from a few places that required insurance. I'm sure they are there. But it isn't a federal requirement.

mimartin

12-25-2009, 10:10 PM

No matter how you slice it you are paying for motor vehicle insurance. There is no way around it. If you walk or ride a horse everywhere you went you are still paying for it. You think that truck that delivered the bread to the store within walking distance did not have insurance on it? The cost of doing business is built into the cost of the bread.

Yes, both renters insurance and auto insurance is required by the state government. Does that somehow make the money coming out of the tax payer pocket any less intrusive?

Tommycat

12-25-2009, 10:25 PM

The individual can avoid paying insurance. That loaf of bread doesn't cost less for the person who pays auto insurance. The oats you feed a horse might cost less if you haul it yourself. Of course if you happen to grow your own alfalfa, and make your own hay bails etc, you could avoid a lot of costs. But regardless, the truth is that there IS still a way around the individual being required to pay insurance.

As to the second part, I feel more connected to my state government and the closer to home it is the better. Federal requirements are much further removed from my control. I don't care if NY decides that everyone in NY should pay 50% of their pay to some form of insurance. That's on the people of NY to decide for themselves. The federal level is so far removed from my daily life that they have no connection to my needs.

mimartin

12-25-2009, 10:36 PM

And I fell more comfortable with the Federal Government making decisions than my local government. A bunch of good ol’ boy cronies that can’t even distinguish what a proper text book is are not the people I want making decisions that affect my life.

As a veteran are you not already provided medical benefits? Wouldn’t that exempt you from any fine?

Tommycat

12-25-2009, 11:00 PM

And I fell more comfortable with the Federal Government making decisions than my local government. A bunch of good ol’ boy cronies that can’t even distinguish what a proper text book is are not the people I want making decisions that affect my life.

As a veteran are you not already provided medical benefits? Wouldn’t that exempt you from any fine?

As to the first, Guess we tend to disagree on that one. I feel the Federal is far worse than state and local.

As to the second part, Regardless of whether I would be fined or not I dislike the requirement. And actually I get insurance through work, so in reality it would not effect me at all. HOWEVER, that I am not directly affected does not mean that I cannot be outraged that my friends who are on 1099 or independant contractors, or otherwise soon to be facing fines, will be affected by this.

Jae Onasi

12-25-2009, 11:40 PM

Having had experience with family having Medicare and Medicaid, and dealing with Medicaid and Medicare from a provider point of view, I far prefer the federal Medicare to Medicaid. Medicare pays their bills on time. States, however, apparently don't feel compelled to pay in a timely manner, and certainly not at a reasonable rate. In IL and WI, we actually lose money seeing Medicaid patients because the reimbursement rate for exams is less than what it costs to see the patients. In IL, then-Gov. Blagojevich dealt with the fiscal crisis by simply not paying its Medicaid bills. Facilities that see primarily Medicaid patients (Stroger Hospital, clinics for the poor, nursing homes) were so far behind in getting paid (the state was overdue by 9 months at one point) that they literally had to close their doors. I don't want to see a situation where one person (the governor) can wield that much power over what I get paid and how long they can delay paying me.

Totenkopf

12-26-2009, 01:04 AM

That is the entire point. :rolleyes:
Yes, people still will not be covered, but who is to blame for that? Perhaps if we would have gone with Universal Health Care like every other modern nation everyone would be covered. Instead the conservatives tear all reform apart and then grip that it does not cover everyone.

What is ridiculous is the current system where the uninsured get medical care free, while those that are insured and/or tax payers foot the bill.

My point was only that even the proposed legislation doesn't cover everyone getting "free care" b/c they are uninsured. You didn't differentiate and merely made a broad statement. So we will still be paying for the uninsured either way. :rolleyes:

@TC--if $750 or 2% is < cost of insurance......

Tommycat

12-26-2009, 01:29 AM

@TC--if $750 or 2% is < cost of insurance......
Problem comes in that the person may also face jail time. It doesn't take long before the 750 or 2% becomes harder to afford. Course some might even just consider it an additional 2% income tax.

Jae Onasi

12-29-2009, 09:08 PM

Problem comes in that the person may also face jail time. It doesn't take long before the 750 or 2% becomes harder to afford. Course some might even just consider it an additional 2% income tax.Well, most countries take it out of taxes. I had no illusions that this would be free, after all. It may cost me 2% more in income, but it'll cost me less in the long run if it lowers premium costs because the costs are spread out over more insurees. I have to pay now through state taxes for those who are younger than the age for normal Medicare eligibility, but get terribly sick or injured and are put on Medicaid retroactively.

mimartin

12-30-2009, 12:53 AM

My point was only that even the proposed legislation doesn't cover everyone getting "free care" b/c they are uninsured. You didn't differentiate and merely made a broad statement. So we will still be paying for the uninsured either way. :rolleyes:And writing something completely irrelevant and out of context sarcastically does not suddenly make the content of those remarks meaningful.

Those that can afford coverage, yet choice to not purchase coverage are held accountable. This was my entire point.

Totenkopf

12-30-2009, 06:51 AM

Actually, it wasn't sarcastic, nor irrelevant. Fact is, just b/c someone doesn't buy health insurance doesn't mean that they'll ultimately be "paid for" by the rest of us. They may never have to use any in the end. Your being unduly presumptuous and that doesn't give your point any weight either. ;) Since you think helath insurance ought to be mandatory, maybe you should just force everyone to have to pay a direct tax to the govt, ban the insurance industry and hope our dear leaders don't squander the money in the end in a plethora of grab bags to their constituents in yet unending gambits to buy votes for their continuous reelections. (ps, now I'm being sarcastic.....slightly)

mimartin

12-30-2009, 08:50 AM

lol "unduly presumptuous" who?

Q

12-30-2009, 01:29 PM

And I fell more comfortable with the Federal Government making decisions than my local government.
I wouldn't trust either one to pour pee out of a boot, but at least we have (slightly) more say in what the state governments do.

You know, it looks like all this bill is going to accomplish is to establish yet another bloated, expensive, inefficient federal bureaucracy whose only purpose is to absorb more taxes, exert more control over the population and provide more excuses to fine people and throw them in jail. It's almost as if that was its purpose from the beginning, rather than actually helping people.

Oh, wait... :dozey:

Totenkopf

12-30-2009, 06:00 PM

lol "unduly presumptuous" who?

You, naturally. ;)

Tommycat

12-30-2009, 09:42 PM

Well, most countries take it out of taxes. I had no illusions that this would be free, after all. It may cost me 2% more in income, but it'll cost me less in the long run if it lowers premium costs because the costs are spread out over more insurees. I have to pay now through state taxes for those who are younger than the age for normal Medicare eligibility, but get terribly sick or injured and are put on Medicaid retroactively.

That would be far more understandable IF this actually covered the uninsured. It doesn't. It's HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to essentially make people who MAY or MAY NOT be able to get insurance. I mean we're talking some real money here. Then again, what does the government care. They have deep pockets because they are reaching into ours.

This bill is pure rubbish. It's more like half a bill.

I also prefer paying state governments for services. While there may be corruption at the state level, at least it's less likely to go to something that I will never need nor see. Funny how funding tends to get sent to states that $PARTY needs votes from. Diverted from say adding a hospital to making a nose hair monument or something equally useless...

jrrtoken

12-30-2009, 09:52 PM

I find it... funni that those who complain that some government-funded social program is "overfunded"; "waste of money"; etc, usually seem to be very complacent - if not outright anticipative - of some military ad hoc 'KEEP AMERICA SAFE' machination. Apparently economic conservatism doesn't apply to military affairs, or perhaps I'm just perceiving it in the wrong light...

Tommycat

12-30-2009, 10:02 PM

"... provide for the common defense..."
And while I DO in general like to see our military funded and properly equipped, I also see that our military is EXTREMELY wasteful with the money it receives. I mean come on, it is a universal joke about the $800 hammer. Of course, that also tends to color my perspective on how well the Fed will be able to handle the hundreds of billions we're throwing at this boondoggle.

Totenkopf

12-30-2009, 10:25 PM

I find it... funni that those who complain that some government-funded social program is "overfunded"; "waste of money"; etc, usually seem to be very complacent - if not outright anticipative - of some military ad hoc 'KEEP AMERICA SAFE' machination. Apparently economic conservatism doesn't apply to military affairs, or perhaps I'm just perceiving it in the wrong light...

Well, no more funny than believing that a govt that can't seem to avoid wasting defense dollars will somehow be responsible with healthcare dollars. ;)

Jae Onasi

12-31-2009, 10:08 PM

That would be far more understandable IF this actually covered the uninsured. It doesn't. It's HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS to essentially make people who MAY or MAY NOT be able to get insurance. I mean we're talking some real money here. Then again, what does the government care. They have deep pockets because they are reaching into ours.

This bill is pure rubbish. It's more like half a bill.

I also prefer paying state governments for services. While there may be corruption at the state level, at least it's less likely to go to something that I will never need nor see. Funny how funding tends to get sent to states that $PARTY needs votes from. Diverted from say adding a hospital to making a nose hair monument or something equally useless...
I would generally agree with you if I hadn't had experience dealing with patients and payments from both Medicaid (state run) and Medicare (federal run). Medicare is far and away much better for coverage and payment. Medicaid just plain sucks for payments (i.e. it actually costs us money to see a Medicaid patient because the insurance payment is less than our costs of doing business) and getting approval for various procedures is a total pain in the butt. The state delays payments for months or just plain doesn't cover at all, and there's nothing you can do about it. On top of that, the paperwork for Medicare is streamlined (as much as any insurance paperwork can be), and it is horrendous for Medicaid. I'd never get filthy rich seeing Medicare patients, but at least I can make a fair wage for my work. I can't even stay in business with Medicaid.

Tommycat

01-01-2010, 03:32 AM

I would generally agree with you if I hadn't had experience dealing with patients and payments from both Medicaid (state run) and Medicare (federal run). Medicare is far and away much better for coverage and payment. Medicaid just plain sucks for payments (i.e. it actually costs us money to see a Medicaid patient because the insurance payment is less than our costs of doing business) and getting approval for various procedures is a total pain in the butt. The state delays payments for months or just plain doesn't cover at all, and there's nothing you can do about it. On top of that, the paperwork for Medicare is streamlined (as much as any insurance paperwork can be), and it is horrendous for Medicaid. I'd never get filthy rich seeing Medicare patients, but at least I can make a fair wage for my work. I can't even stay in business with Medicaid.

Perhaps that's part of what has colored my vision, Here in AZ, we have AHCCCS(Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System) (http://www.azahcccs.gov/shared/about.aspx) and at least on the surface seems to work quite well. Perhaps if other states adopted our method. But then it would involve making choices on who your local representatives are. While YOU may be informed enough to put in that much effort, your fellow citizens may not be. They just keep re-electing the same failure politicians who put lining their pockets above the healthcare of the average joe. Access is pretty successful here. Then again, we have significantly fewer people here than there.

Of course that again is part of the reason I don't like the fed getting involved. I mean just because YOUR state can't budget in medicaid, why should MY state have to pick up the slack? Especially when YOUR state has more people making more money?

Jae Onasi

01-01-2010, 11:35 AM

Of course that again is part of the reason I don't like the fed getting involved. I mean just because YOUR state can't budget in medicaid, why should MY state have to pick up the slack? Especially when YOUR state has more people making more money?

I've experienced Medicaid failures in multiple states--Kansas, Ohio, Wisconsin, and particularly Illinois (where lovely Blagojevich just decided not to pay anyone for over 6 months before he go booted out of office). Despite all the problems the fed can have, they're at least doing Medicare a lot better than states are doing Medicaid. I haven't analyzed why that is yet, I just know that's what's happening here in the trenches.

El Sitherino

01-02-2010, 01:18 AM

Of course that again is part of the reason I don't like the fed getting involved. I mean just because YOUR state can't budget in medicaid, why should MY state have to pick up the slack? Especially when YOUR state has more people making more money?
Because that's part of being United States of America? Kind of like a family helps each other out, regardless of who sees benefit?

Tommycat

01-02-2010, 06:02 AM

Because that's part of being United States of America? Kind of like a family helps each other out, regardless of who sees benefit?

Not really. More like your crappy neighbor that can't pay their bills but can afford to keep having parties.

And SINCE we're talking about the United States, we also seem to be leaving out the States part as well. Being individual states we are allowed to have our own state budgets. We have our own needs. The medical needs of California are not the same as the needs of AZ. Let CA handle their needs. If they need more health care funds, they need to find the money in their budgets.

El Sitherino

01-02-2010, 03:25 PM

Not really. More like your crappy neighbor that can't pay their bills but can afford to keep having parties.

Actually I think that would be what foreign aid qualifies as, since as American citizens we're to consider eachother like a family...

And SINCE we're talking about the United States, we also seem to be leaving out the States part as well. Being individual states we are allowed to have our own state budgets. We have our own needs. The medical needs of California are not the same as the needs of AZ. Let CA handle their needs. If they need more health care funds, they need to find the money in their budgets.
I guess you'd like to go back to the days of ineffective government where we had the Articles of Confederation. There's a reason that we established it as the Federal government determines the minimums and the State governments can elaborate further on the matter, that's because we can't continue to have legislation that effectively dismantles our unification as a nation. If we're all effectively different countries then we aren't very united.

Totenkopf

01-02-2010, 05:59 PM

Because that's part of being United States of America? Kind of like a family helps each other out, regardless of who sees benefit?

So, if you had a family member that was stiffing his creditors and obligations to squander his money on junk, you'd natually step in and fill the gap to keep him solvent w/o forcing him to change his ways? If you wouldn't, would you be crazy about the govt forcing you too?

El Sitherino

01-02-2010, 10:28 PM

So, if you had a family member that was stiffing his creditors and obligations to squander his money on junk, you'd natually step in and fill the gap to keep him solvent w/o forcing him to change his ways? If you wouldn't, would you be crazy about the govt forcing you too?

I'm pretty sure I can provide both financial assistance and lessons for a family member to improve their life. I'm not sure why everyone thinks helping people financially automatically means just throwing money at problems and expecting them to go away. Never in my life have I believed throwing money at something makes problems go away, nor have I ever suggested the notion that it does. There are things like stipulations, conditions, whatever you wish to call them. This is what I've always offered even homeless people I give charity to.

Help comes in many forms, like the old proverb goes; Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he feeds himself for a lifetime.

I like to think of my financial support as the additional investment of a fishing pole.

urluckyday

01-03-2010, 12:33 AM

^I like the way you think.

It's just like having a benefit as part of a career where if there's ever a time where you are laid off, you don't get a stipend for however many months, but rather you get a college education paid for (theres a guy like this @ my school). This ensures that the former employee can continue to grow and keep opportunities open...

That's the kind of incentive a health insurance company should offer to its users...

Totenkopf

01-03-2010, 01:40 AM

@Sithy---wasn't assuming you axiomatically just "gave till it hurt, and then some" but put that question to you in the context of the metaphor you were using. So, given your stated position, what exactly do you expect states like CA to do before they come running to the rest of us to make up for their budget deficits via federal handouts/bail outs?

Tommycat

01-06-2010, 09:03 PM

I'm pretty sure I can provide both financial assistance and lessons for a family member to improve their life. I'm not sure why everyone thinks helping people financially automatically means just throwing money at problems and expecting them to go away. Never in my life have I believed throwing money at something makes problems go away, nor have I ever suggested the notion that it does. There are things like stipulations, conditions, whatever you wish to call them. This is what I've always offered even homeless people I give charity to.

Help comes in many forms, like the old proverb goes; Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he feeds himself for a lifetime.

I like to think of my financial support as the additional investment of a fishing pole.

problem with your metaphor, we're not giving lessons, just money. In California's case much of their problem is self inflicted. California is like an addict(not singling CA out on purpose, I actually happen to like CA) in that they have these self inflicted problems that they can't change easily. but they will be receiving the funds regardless.

Course AZ is $1.6B over budget... So I guess I can't be too high and mighty...

urluckyday

01-09-2010, 07:41 PM

I was watching Glenn Beck (yes I know, don't hound me but I do actually think he makes some good unbiased points at times). This time was about Obama's view that healthcare is a right for Americans. He believes that the only rights that the Constitution outlines are rights that God can give people and the Constitution merely explains this rather than giving rights to people. I agree with Beck in this sense.
I do not believe that healthcare is a right and should be given as a right by the government.
Do you think that healthcare is a right?

Darth Avlectus

01-09-2010, 08:06 PM

Depends how deeply into the semantics you want to get in this. While good health could arguably be said to be part of the right to the pursuit of happiness, good health and healthcare are two separate things, if eventually coming around and correlating.

Also so far as CA: this state almost never refuses anyone. In fact, one major problem we're having is that procedures which are supposed to be checked to see if they're covered by third party (insurance or government department) BEFOREHAND, are not checked. The procedure is done only to reveal after the fact "wait a minute, this isn't covered, we want payment from you the patient and we want it right now on our terms. Gimmie gimmie gimmie". This is why we have so many lawsuits. Which in turn has attracted all sorts of parasites that do these frivolous lawsuits.

Carry on.

EDIT: Every time we try to put stipulation, condition, or some kind of requirement on this, however, one side has a fit calling it unethical, immoral, cruel and inhumane. So it just keeps ending up as throwing money at the problem, or idle hands doing nothing. Neither of these seem to be working out too well, either.

Ghost

01-09-2010, 08:38 PM

I live in California, and yet still the health insurance sucks. The Blue Cross I have determined is probably going to have to have major reforms. Here are things that I think the reform needs to touch:

A. Blue Cross once charged me for an emergency room visit when it was an urgent care visit, big difference. I think this is just a scam of stupidity to get more money for those tards.

B. A lot of health insurance companies, especially the big ones, are picky. Some are racist, some are sexist. For example, the Blue Cross payed for *most* of my hospitial bills no problem, but for my mom they won't pay a penny, only for things related to birth-giving. My mom got really sick once and no health insurance companies gave a ****. I sure hope Obama nails BC.